The Pelosi Vehicle

McCain, Not Obama, Right This Time

Courtesy of the Chicago Sun Times

August 12, 2008

STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com

Mention Georgia a few days ago, and most of us would have thought of the state evoked so sweetly in "Georgia on My Mind," the classic tune sung by Ray Charles. Very few of us had heard of the South Ossetia province of Georgia, the nation with the misfortune to have Russia as its neighbor, until war broke out last week.

Like Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait and other unfamiliar places before, Ossetia reminds us that a small, remote corner of the globe can explode into an international crisis. One who was up to speed on Georgia and the menace it faced from Russia was veteran Sen. John McCain. He had visited the Caucasian nation three times in a dozen years. When fighting erupted, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate got on the phone to gather details and issued a statement Friday summarizing the situation, tagging Russia as the aggressor and demanding it withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Georgia.

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain's experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.

Obama's favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia's invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia and, to that end, bully former vassal states like Georgia out of their democratic ways. The fear is that Ukraine will come in his cross hairs next.

However the world's newest war ends, America's leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia's resurgent aggressive instincts -- the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.

While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea -- long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts -- now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.

McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.

As Georgia burns, we need to light a fire under all the talk about energy security and start doing what it takes to make it happen.

Who's In Your Corner (Not!)

You can turn on any newscast and the top story is the economy. The corollary story is the price of oil. Supposedly, people think the President has the power to "do something about the price of oil." Not so. The Executive branch can only act upon laws and bills passed by Congress. So what has Congress done lately to lower the price of oil? If the price is based on supply and demand, you would think that the reduced demand, as cited in the news, would help. Not so-the supplies were lowered by foreign producers to keep prices high. So the next step would be to increase domestic production. But the folks who are running the committees in Congress are now headed and filled with appointees from Pelosi and company. So what did the Congressional subcommittee do for you yesterday? They denied any drilling for oil of of Florida. But that's just for AMERICAN companies. It seems that Cuba, China AND India are all drilling from the same oil field just outside the 50 mile line from shore. The rest of the world is profiting from OUR resources, and then selling them back to us for a profit. The Democrat controlled Congress has done NOTHING to stem this, they insist on following a tangential line of quasi-environmentalism that is leading us to deny our own citizens a safe lifestyle. The case could easily be made that if, as many liberals contend, the war in Iraq was for oil, then what policy forced us to be so concerned about keeping safe our energy supply? In short, would we be in Iraq if environmentalists had prevented using our own coal and oil? And remember, while people can point fingers all they want at the White House, it's Congress that calls the shots. Oh, and by the way, the vote broke down by parties-Democrats opposing drilling, Republicans supporting it. Who's in your corner, really?

China Drills While Congress Piddles.
Subcommittee Rejects Drilling

It's Not Easy, or Cheap, Being Green

An interesting break down of what Texas would have to pay in terms of higher costs for energy if certain measures make their way through Congress is Here.
The entire study is HERE
Just keep these number in mind when you vote.

Our Demanding Society

The basic laws of economics centers around the
concept known as "supply and demand".

For example, let's say you really like Chocolate donuts, and in fact everyone you know likes Chocolate donuts. If there is only one donut shop in town (which in fact would be a local monopoly) they could charge five bucks a donut if they wanted, because there was no other way to get scrumptious, delicious, warm chocolate donuts. Now let's imagine if in this same town, a SECOND donut shop opened up. They could set their price at four dollars, which would still be high, but lower than the existing shop. The other shop would lose business and be forced to LOWER their prices in order to stay competitive.

Later on down the road, a corporate bakery makes donuts by the dozen, lowering prices because now chocolate donuts were plentiful and even though the local donuts were more expensive and probably tasted better, people were willing to take a lower quality product to save a few bucks, just so long as they had the appearance of being people who could afford chocolate donuts. The local stores would downsize or close due to the overabundance of donuts, allowing the corporate bakery to make ALL the donuts for the area. But with rising costs of retirement, insurance and disability, the corporation found itself top-heavy with overpaid management and overpaid line employees. So to save the brand at all costs, the company would fire domestic employees and move the entire factory overseas-where the managers would still get hefty incomes, but the line works were paid in dollars per week instead of dollars per day. The citizens still wanted to have those desirable chocolate donuts, but now in order to keep a profit for stockholders, the company has eliminated jobs that allow money to return to the economy.

On top of that, let's assume that Congress, concerned about the increasing girth of its citizens, decides to limit the number of yummy chocolate donuts that can be made in this country. Now imagine that a factory in Indonesia makes really cheap chocolate donuts. They could sell them for a dollar a DOZEN. That would drive out the local shops and corner the business with lower grade, cheaper quality chocolate donuts. Add that the dollars would only flow OUT of the country, creating an economic vacuum. They would outsell the American corporation, buy them out and before you know it, the only thing Americans have to show for their trouble is way too much of a belly from gorging on chocolate donuts. The only solution to save the economy is to permit chocolate donut shops to open and produce the SUPPLY that the public DEMANDS.

Now let's talk about gasoline. It comes from oil. A barrel of oil yields just about 17 gallons of gas. And that's before the spa style additives demanded by certain states. Believe it or not, we have oil resources in our national territory, but we can't access it. We can't even think about accessing it. And furthermore, if you read the web, we should feel virtuous for not allowing American countries to access American resources for the benefit of the American public. Who is running this show anyway and who is in their back pocket?

While I do think that corporate honchos are getting far too much compensation for what they actually do, and while there are probably layers of management that could disappear tomorrow without ill effects, the key issue to gas prices is SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Corporate profits have remained steady. You hear the astronomical numbers of gross income, but not the facts regarding the increased cost of everything from exploration to transport. Our economy demands oil and gas. And whether you like it or not, that's not going to change very soon. For all of the pie in the sky promises, there are few meaningful alternatives right now. You can talk electric hybrids, but there are still questions about the environmental impact of the batteries, and you can talk electric cars, but if you charge a car using conventional power sources, you are using coal or natural gas-both questionable sources in terms of the environment. We can't build nuclear, we can't harness enough wind or water power, we simply don't have a viable delivery system for biodiesel or other sources. In short, we are left stranded by the same Congressional do-gooders who claim to have our best interests at heart. Our Congress has patted themselves on the back for limiting exploration off of Florida, off of the West Coast, the East Coast and Alaska. Never mind that Castro and his friends are there pumping away to have oil that will be refined in Venezuela. There comes a point in time where you have to put aside your petty bickering to look at the greater good. What good comes of $4.00 per gallon gasoline? What good does it do other than make those who struggle even less able to survive. If you answer that it makes people use mass transit, then you are a self-centered boob. While it may allow some to consider those options, how many more will it limit in terms of their ability to hold a job, go to school or get medical services? It's time to be big boys and girls and allow limited drilling in ANWR, and on the coasts. And it's time to remind those folks in Washington, who's boss.

Al Sez: Skeptics Aren't "Real" Scientists-HA!

His HolierThanThouness the Enviropope AlGore I has said that global warming skeptics are intellectual lightweights unable to fathom the depth of the Global Warming scenario. Seems like most of the hot air is coming from him and his brain trust-such intellectuals as Leo DiCaprio. Wow. I am underwhelmed.
Global warming skeptics are not real scientists? April 3rd, 2008 · posted by Mark Landsbaum

Al Gore says global warming skeptics are not real scientists.

Zat so? How about these guys:

Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”

Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”

Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”

Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

The aforementioned can be found at Amazon.com from whence this list was drawn. Gee, these fellas must be in Exxon’s pocket, eh?"

Another Global Warming "OOPSIE" Moment

So we have all these celebrity types who want to latch on and bask in the reflected glow of Al Gore under the dubious guise of "stopping Global Warming." Never mind that that particular moniker has recently been changed to "Global Change" which syncs nicely with someone's presidential campaign rhetoric, just pretend to go along. Well now it seems that some fairly heavy hitters who have spent more than a summer studying the weather, global currents and such are questioning the rush to judgment on the part of the Nobel committee and the Usual Suspects. Read the letter linked to the title above and the blog at Orange Punch and then ask yourself as the prices on gas rise and the demands of the liberal left further restrict domestic exploration and production if it's worth it to your family to keep throwing good money on bad science?
Bad Science

Global Warming Payola

From the New York Times comes this tidbit of interest. People tend to trust the government research more than privately funded research. But you have to wonder how well researched or documented situations regarding the environment or diet or any other of the media buzzwords are completely clear when money and government grants get in the way. Do you bite the hand that feeds you? Or do you simply create research to support whatever plans are in place?

Entire story here.

"....Now, you may trust the government agencies more than you do private companies because the agencies are supposed to be serving the public, not increasing profits for shareholders. But the officials running the agencies have their own agendas — like increasing their budgets and power and prestige, which can be done by supporting research demonstrating that there’s a terrible problem for the agency to solve. These officials are also subject to pressure from politicians and from the research establishment, which by definition tends to be more interested in work that conforms with the prevailing wisdom.

Once the fat-is-bad theory became the consensus — and was being formally promoted in federal agencies’ recommendations to the public — the officials handing out money were much more interested in finding evidence about the evils of fat than in looking at alternative hypotheses (like the carbs-are-bad theory discussed by Mr. Taubes). And research that jibed with the majority opinion was more likely to appeal to the editors and reviewers at journals as well as to journalists covering the debate. Scientists and journalists try to be open-minded, but they’re not immune to the confirmation bias that has been documented in so many experiments.

Moreover, it’s naive to think that money from industry is a monolith supporting one side of a debate. There were plenty of food companies eager to support the fat-is-bad consensus and profit by selling new low-fat products, just as there are companies — whole industries, in fact — eagerly promoting research and policies that jibe with the prevailing view on the dangers of global warming. Granted, there are companies lobbying against emission cuts because it could cost them money, but there’s plenty of potential for profit in the campaign against global warming, and energy companies are already angling for their cut.

A cap-and-trade systems for curbing carbon emissions (the kind criticized at this week’s conference) is popular in Washington in no small part because of corporate lobbyists who see a chance to make money from the carbon credits. There’s money to be made in developing alternative energy — even when it’s not so green, like the ethanol industry that has been collecting subsidies for decades. There’s money to be made by cultivating a green image. And there’s lots of money to be doled out to researchers studying climate change and new energy technologies...."

Now, Can We Drill?

I want you to consider the amount of damage that has been perpetrated in the name of environmentalism. Thanks to the China Syndrome, we stopped building nuclear power plants. And the last ones built were so challenged in the courts that their costs were three times the original plan. Thanks to other environmental programs, we can't drill off of the coasts of Florida-where one of the potentially richest oil fields is currently being illegally tapped by Cuba. We can't drill in ANWR in Alaska for fear of a dwindling caribou population. We are pushed by a Congress with eyes on rural votes to have corn ethanol in our fuel. We haven't built a refinery in 29 years. We can't use coal because of acid rain. So what are we to do?

The Ivory Tower advocates for clean air like to point to things such as hybrid cars, expensive fixes for homes and ethanol from corn-which not only reduced fuel efficiency but causes the price of gas at the pump to spike due to the necessary purging of fuel lines in order to have it added. The same people who so elegantly point to rows of cars don't stop to consider that average people cannot afford these things. And with the rising cost of fuel, everything is going to rise in cost from food to energy. It's funny how the same folks who push these ideas don't understand that those of us who work for a living can't just trash our old clunkers and spend $400 a month paying for a new car. And what's worse, they don't really seem to care.

There is the laissez-faire attitude that we "little people" can simply walk to work or turn off the air conditioning. What about the elderly, the infirm or the very young? I guess it's easy to do without air conditioning when you live in a climate were it's only needed a few weeks per year, but what are you going to tell folks in Houston, Dallas, Flagstaff, New Orleans, Phoenix or El Paso? Should we simply close shop and leave town from May until September? Should we wander around like previous generations of the Dust Bowl era?

And it goes farther than that. There's no question that the war in the Middle East has to do with national security in as much as oil is necessary to our livelihood. With Saddam in power and exercising control of the region, we would have been his virtual economic slaves. Right now, environmentalist are limiting our abilities to produce domestic fuel in so many ways, and yet they refuse to realize that these goals have forced our hand internationally. Oil is reaching record purchasing amounts, and the government makes money off of every gallon. We have reserves, we have potential sites for exploration and drilling, but the same folks who seem to be blind to the needs of everyday people are keeping us from progressing. It's the same attitude that helped Marie Antoinette lose her head. At estimated costs to the consumer of $4.00 a gallon coming soon to a neighborhood near you, isn't it time for us to stop this wasteful navel gazing nonsense and begin to use what resources we have available to tide us through until the next great wave of transportation technology comes along? Most midwives and obstetricians will tell you that an induced birth is more painful for the mother and the child. What organized environmentalism is doing to our nation now is the energy equivalent of a pitocin drip. So for the last time, NOW CAN WE DRILL?

Polar Bears Extinct? Not Hardly.

The Greenies would have us believe that countless white fuzzy polar bears are drowning in the melting soup that the Arctic oceans have dissolved into. But as usual, there's just a little problem with the science fact over the science fiction which is being promoted by Al Gore, Greenpeace and countless other members of the Church of Global Warming. Thanks to this study, being brought to light by OrangePunch, we now know that like swirly bulbs being environmentally sound and hybrid cars getting 50 mpg, this is just more anarchist malarky designed to stampede the unknowing into supporting causes that have NO MERIT.

"Polar bear extinction? Not exactly.

February 21st, 2008 by mlandsbaum

From Mark Landsbaum

So, is global warming killing off polar bears? Don’t bet on it.

Despite the government poised to declare the polar bear the first species officially threatened by global warming, it turns out just the opposite is true.

U.S. polar bear populations aren’t declining. H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, says comprehensive research shows that since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, the overall number of polar bears didn’t just increase, but increased dramatically.

Today there are about 25,000 of the furry white critters, more than any time in the 20th century.

Meanwhile, the World Wildlife Fund found that of the 20 polar bear populations worldwide, only two are decreasing. And guess what. Those are in areas where air temperatures have fallen, not risen.

So, we’re losing bears where it’s getting cooler. Hm. Not much to blame global warming for there.

There were two polar bear populations that have grown. But guess what. They live in areas were air temperatures have risen.

Hm. We’re getting more bears where it’s getting warmer.

In fact, evolutionary biologist and paleozoologist Susan Crockford, of Canada’s University of Victoria, says polar bears historically thrive when temperatures have been warmer than the temperatures we have today.

Yes, we know, it doesn’t fit the global warming story line. But that’s why we call it a “story line” and not a fact.

Swirly Logic

Remember the big push to get all of us to switch to those funky swirly lightbulbs? Walmart, Target, all the heavy hitters of Ecological hierarchy were pushing this. Well it seems that they missed one little thing. The things last a long time, but in the end, it seems that they also contain MERCURY. Yes, it's that seep-into-the-watershed and call out the Hazmat team, mercury. Now how exactly did the geniuses that pushed this program miss that point? And furthermore, since the eco-hierarchy was the one pushing it, how off are they on other key issues, like say, hydrogen fuel cells? I know that fire departments are already in a snit over the danger of larger batteries and hazards due to lead in car accidents. Can you imagine the potential for destruction and death with an unstable fuel cell that is pushed blindly through the system by overeager envirotechies? I think it's plain old scary. And that we could end up with a rubber stamp government that would pass through such a program despite it's potential for danger is scarier still.

Good News from Down Under!

I was badly needing something good to be in the news. Politics is depressing. The economy is depressing. Even the sports news is sad, stupid and yes, depressing. So with the yin and yang of things, I figured if the northern hemisphere was in the dumps, then maybe there was more optimism to be found down under. And I was right. Read and rejoice!
Kerplunk

Environmentalism and Forgetfulness

This from an owner of a supposedly "green" car:
From this site
"The Aptera is a new, much discussed vehicle, a gas-electric hybrid, that the developers claim will get around 300 miles per gallon of gasoline. It will retail for about $30,000. However, it makes sense only for someone who wants to show off his (or her or transgendered) environmental bona fides. As a money saver, it doesn't.

For example, I bought my car (a Japanese compact) ten years ago, and it was one year old at the time. I paid $11,000, which The Inflation Calculator says is about $13,600 today. Gasoline currently sells for about $3 a gallon. If I were to fill up the tank weekly (in reality I fill up far less often), the cost would be about $1560 a year. The Aptera's yearly gas cost would be only about a tenth of that, or $156, for a savings of about $1400 a year.

However, the difference in price between the two cars is over $16,000, so if an Aptera had been available ten years ago, and I had bought it instead, I would still not have saved enough money from lower gasoline costs to make up the difference. Furthermore, you're going to have to replace the Aptera's batteries every 8 years (I think) at huge cost. And even further, despite my car's status as a small car, it's a lot more solid and probably safer than the Aptera, which looks pretty flimsy.

The Aptera's price would have to come down considerably to make it price competitive with most current cars, and you'd still have to get over an aversion to driving in a cramped tricycle."

A comment logged in response to this post:
"I look forward to the day when horseriding as a form of transport make a comeback. That whole cowboy chic is very appealing, Brokeback Mountain notwithstanding."

Reference note in a study about transportation in New York City at the eve of the 20th century:
"The Automobile Age by James J. Flink. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998:. Sanitation p.136: Horse manure responsible for the spread of diseases in New York City. Flies which fed on manure also spread disease. Dead horses blocked streets."

The conclusion-too many people are so shallow in their knowledge and so lemming-like in their behavior, that they will buy and use products just because they claim a "green" status. Since our educational system has relegated the study of history to a minor status, we have countless people who like to pretend the Old West or the Victorian Era was a romantic wonderful time. They discount the scourges of disease, death, and danger which were always part of any person's life. Back then, there were no guarantees of survival past infancy. There were no safety nets, no social programs and no taxes to pay for such things. But this is the key problem that I have with so many of those who like to call themselves environmentalists. They want civilization to take a giant step back and they are willing to use any means necessary to do so. They are so ignorant of the realities of life without things like air conditioning, heating, cars, and such that they think doing without would be a picnic. People will do what they can as long as it doesn't negatively impact their lifestyle. And while those folks in the chichi mansions on Cape Cod and Malibu are really good about telling us little folks how we should do without, I doubt very much they would limit their own very large carbon footprints to do the same.

Knee Jerk Environmentalism

Part of the problem with the furor that is Global Warming is that it stampedes the true believers into some poorly thought out alternatives. For example, those swirly bulbs that are being pushed contain MERCURY. There have been some claims that they may cause skin problems in people with sensitivity. What sort of disposal systems have been set in place for discarding these bulbs? And before you answer, I want you to consider that if a mercury thermometer is dropped in a high school classroom, the Hazmat teams are called out due to toxicity. I also want you to consider the toxicity of the battery packs of hybrid cars. They are about six times as large, and because our battery efficiency isn't quite what it should be to produce these cars, they still contain LEAD-another toxic heavy metal. While these batteries "may" last six to ten years, what will happen to the environment when these aging batteries begin to fail? And in addition, with a potential cost of over $3000 to replace these batteries, what will happen to cars that are traded in and not refurbished? And before you answer, remember that in some cases governments are giving rebates on such cars. Here's the deal, we have people who are intellectual sheep. While there may be some issues in the environment we can help, there are just as many we cannot. And our environmental "leaders" aren't helping matters. They have blocked the building of nuclear power plants (safely used in Europe for many years), restricted the building of refineries-all the while mandating that corn based ethanol be used to extend the fuel even while reducing fuel efficiency by 15%, and refusing to allow America to explore for oil within our own borders-allowing Cuba to exploit offshore oil fields in American waters. Are they just trying to totally dismantle this nation by their blind allegiance to whatever measure sounds good on paper?

"Private Jets for Climate Change"

The headline above is a quote from some of the bands who saw through this little political escapade disguised as benefit and did not participate. It is estimated that the one day at Wembley used as much energy as 3000 Britons FOR A YEAR!!! Live Earth is probably one of the most delusional, self-serving bits of propaganda to come along in awhile. While the likes of Madonna and The Pussycat Dolls pat themselves on the back, only one third of the trash generated is recyclable.

LONDON, July 7 -- "If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and down!" Thus Madonna revealed her plan to combat global warming.

In fact, Madonna's estimated personal carbon footprint is estimated to be 300 times the average British family. Not all groups were persuaded to closing rank. In fact, none other than The Who, refused to participate noting that the travel of celebrities to the event was more disastrous than the average workaday world. The timing itself could have been better, as it was on the anniversary of the British bus bombing. Below are a few quotes.

"It's an inconvenient truth, but mixing rock with recycling is awkward. In a TV interview earlier this week, Matt Bellamy of the band Muse mocked the event as "private jets for climate change."

Go here for a really scary image of Madonna

"John Buckley of Carbon Footprint, an organization that helps companies reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, said Saturday that Live Earth will produce about 74,500 tons of the gas.

"We would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth," he said, speaking by telephone. But, he added, "if you can reach 2 billion people and raise awareness that's pretty fantastic."

Want to find out your carbon impact? http://www.earthlab.com/carbonProfile/LiveEarth.htm,

Another and Different Inconvenient Truth

In "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore makes the claim that we are in the end days ecologically speaking. He speaks from the point of view of many scientists that do not actually do the research, but instead simply read and review the research of others. In the scientific arena, as in the political one, there are two or more points of view. No doubt, it would help the American economy to be more independent of international blackmail in the form of oil or energy pricing. There is also no doubt that we all could do more to help the environment. We should all be prudent with resources. We should all recycle and we should all use energy wisely and well. What the problem is that we are ignoring viable sources of cheap and domestically available energy to soothe the savage beast of the Environmental political action groups. They wail and whine every time the subject of using our natural national resources comes to a vote. They bemoan the fate of polar bears and whales and such with the "facts" loosely thrown about by alleged authorities. Facts are only as good as the research that brings them to light. Let me ask you, do you think global warming is a recent phenomenon? If so, they how do you explain the drought that brought about the Dust Bowl in the 1930's or the thirty year drought that resulted from the absorption of water into the polar ice caps in the 1200's? How do you explain that parts of England that grew grapes now cannot sustain that due to a colder climate? And how do you account for the fact that most geologists count us as being in the end of the most recent Ice Age? The simple fact is, we do not know for certain that any of the event perpetrated by humankind has any effect on the earth. We do no know whether the hole in the ozone layer are a recent or recurring event. We do not know even such basic data as temperatures further back than 150 years. In the millenia that the earth has experienced change and weather, we only know the smallest part of the history. And any scientist will tell you that if you only know a little, what you do not know will be what comes back to bite you. I recall in high school during the Carter years, the same groups were bemoaning the return of an Ice Age. Now they are doing a 180 and expecting the industrialized world to pay the price, via the Kyoto Accord, while China and India continue in some very nasty and unsophisticated pollution. You can't have it both ways. Either it is bad for everyone, or bad for no one. In the meantime, you may want to read this article. And next time someone wants you to sign a petition, you may want to ask them what they actually know beyond the name of the organization sponsoring the event.