Hurricane Alley… by J. D. Longstreet

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Evidence … by Paul Driessen

Posted in Global Warming Hoax, Globalist by J. D. Longstreet on December 12, 2009
We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Evidence
Why can’t you be more polite, and stop questioning our integrity and science?
Paul Driessen

********************************

We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence

Why can’t you be more polite, and stop questioning our integrity and science?

Paul Driessen

****************************

Who can forget the classic confrontation between Humphrey Bogart and Alfonso Bedoya in “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.” It’s now being reprised in living color, featuring banditos from East Anglia, Penn State, Washington and the UN.

“We’re Federales,” they tell us. “You know, climate police. Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence. We don’t need no evidence. We don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence.

“Hold your tongue, hombre. We ain’t trying to do you any harm. Why don’t you try to be a little more polite? Why don’t you just throw us a little more money, and stop questioning our integrity and science?”

The United States alone has spent over $30 billion on alarmist “climate science” over the past 20 years – plus another $35 billion on renewable energy – based on the banditos’ tales of global warming catastrophe, if we don’t slash fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.

However, instead of solid, reproducible scientific evidence, the bandito scientists offered hypotheses, speculation, assumptions, assertions, “hockey stick” graphs, computer models and worst-case scenarios – purporting to demonstrate that CO2 causes planetary warming … and the warming will be cataclysmic.

Their reports were “peer-reviewed” by networks of fellow alarmists who tied every temperature, weather and wildlife anomaly to global warming and carbon dioxide. When challenged, they claimed the “science is settled” and stonewalled requests from experts who did not accept dire predictions of planetary mayhem – and wanted to examine the raw temperature data, computer codes and analyses.

Suddenly, however, the world got a glimpse into the mindset and machinations of these tax-funded catastrophists. Thousands of emails revealed systematic, concerted collusion to conceal and delete data, manipulate temperature trends that contradicted predictions of dangerous warming, stifle debate, and pressure scientific journals to publish only alarmist studies … and exclude dissenting analyses.

This fraudulent science is the basis for congressional cap-tax-and-trade legislation, EPA’s pronouncement that CO2 “endangers” human health and welfare, and the new global governance treaty being debated in Copenhagen. The actions will result in huge taxes on energy use, reduced liberties and living standards, millions of lost jobs, and a massive transfer of wealth from energy-consuming families and businesses to governments and their allies.

The proposed Copenhagen treaty authorizes the “transfer of technical and financial resources” from developed countries to developing countries, to help them address climate change impacts allegedly caused by hydrocarbon use in industrialized nations. Free or low-cost technology transfers would include electrical generation and pollution control equipment and patents. “Financial resources” would tally $50-200 billion per year, most of it apparently from the United States.

The money would come from fines for noncompliance with CO2 emission rules, a global “carbon tax” on energy use, a new levy on air travel, and “mandatory contributions” as high as 1% of GDP, paid by (formerly) rich developed countries, as new foreign aid for corrupt officials in poor nations.

One would think such actions would be based on rock-solid science. One would be wrong. It’s time to ask the critical question – which the White House, UN, EPA, “mainstream” media (especially the Associated Press, New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) have refused to consider:

What evidence backs up the terrifying disaster claims, the calls for drastic “solutions” that won’t work, to a crisis that extensive evidence strongly suggests is speculative or even illusory?

Reliable satellite temperature measurements span most of the planet. However, they only cover the last 30 years – and for the past 15 years show stable and then declining temperatures, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. So climate crisis scientists have focused their “research” on ground temperatures.

However, nearly half of the world’s remaining ground-based gauges are in the United States, and cover just 1.8% of the Earth’s surface. Moreover, as meteorologist Anthony Watts has demonstrated, most of those gauges are close to air conditioning exhausts, tarmac, blacktop and other urban heat sources. So they read high, and then are further “adjusted” upward, corrupting climate records, models and analyses.

Most of Siberia’s stations were shut down years ago, leaving that vast frigid region devoid of reliable data, and further tilting average global temperatures upward. Britain’s combined marine and land-based temperatures were “value-added” (aggregated, averaged and manipulated) by its East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) – which then tossed or lost all the original raw data, so no one could check its methodologies, honesty or accuracy. (Try that tactic with your friendly IRS.)

The incomplete, averaged and manipulated ground temperature data were then fed into computer models that reflect our still limited understanding of climate causes and dynamics; assume CO2 is the primary driver in climate change; and poorly analyze the vast, complex, chaotic planetary climate system. The models have never been able to forecast climate accurately, even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100. They can’t reproduce prior years’ climates. They failed to predict the stable and declining temperatures of the past 15 years.

But even that didn’t conjure up the desired “manmade climate crisis.” As a CRU programmer put it, the only way the models can produce “the proper result” is when programmers apply a “very artificial correction,” use “low pass filtering at century and longer  time scales,” and “include a load of garbage.”

Back in 1999, CRU director Phil Jones reported that he’d “just used [Penn State climatologist Michael Mann’s] trick … to hide the decline” in average global temperatures. But in October 2009, US climate scientist Kevin Trenberth moaned that alarmists still “can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Nevertheless, “peer reviewed” scientific journals somehow produce “consensus” among “mainstream” scientists, offer “unequivocal” evidence of disastrous manmade global warming – and give the IPCC, White House, EPA and Congress the “proof” they need to justify treaties, laws and regulations that will send energy costs skyrocketing. Compliant media outlets whitewash the email and science scandal, and trumpet the latest alarmist claims. And voila, like Freddy Krueger in “Nightmare on Elm Street,” the predicted warming crisis is back, just in time for Copenhagen.

Evidence tampering like this would get legal cases thrown out of court – and land the manipulators in jail. To use it in advancing economy-wrecking energy policies is criminal.

Just one week ago, President Obama promised jobs summit attendees, “We will do everything we can to bring down the unemployment rate.”

Within hours, he stepped up his arm-twisting for cap-tax-and-trade in the Senate, announced that he was going to Copenhagen to lobby for a new climate treaty, endorsed still more restrictions on producing America’s vital, abundant hydrocarbon resources, and gave EPA the go-ahead to blackmail Congress by decreeing that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare.

These decisions set the stage for job-killing government control of our energy, economy and lives. If they are implemented, millions of Americans will freeze jobless in the dark.

______________

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which sponsors the All Pain No Gain education campaign and petition against job-killing global warming policies, and the ClimateDepot website for the latest news and views on climate change. He is also a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

Advertisements

Comments Off on We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Evidence … by Paul Driessen

My “Interview” with Al Gore … by Alan Caruba

Posted in Global Warming Hoax, Globalist, Uncategorized by J. D. Longstreet on November 28, 2009

My “Interview” with Al Gore

By Alan Caruba

********************

The mainstream media have been trying to find Al Gore in order to interview him about the revelations that the research data supporting “global warming” was cooked—pardon the pun.

Here is my exclusive “interview” with him. You will find the source of his quotes at the end of this Q & A.

Q: Is it true that you lost your bid to become president because of the media?

A: I don’t want to leave the impression that the media’s unwillingness to focus on the global environment was the only reason why the issue failed to ignite serious debate during the campaign.

Q: A lot of people thought you have made too much about an environmental crisis. What do you say to them?

A: For me, the environmental crisis is the critical case in point: now, every time I pause to consider whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts that continue to pour in from around the world and conclude that I have not gone nearly far enough.

Q: Do you still maintain that human beings are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels, driving automobiles, and such?

A: One doesn’t have to travel around the world to witness humankind’s assault on the earth. Human civilization is now the dominant cause of change in the global environment. Humankind is now changing the climate of the entire globe to a degree far greater—and faster—than anything that has occurred in human history.

Q: So, despite the fact that it’s been revealed that scientists in England, America and elsewhere; those affiliated with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were falsifying their data, do you still believe in global warming?

A: The theory of global warming will not be disproved, and the skeptics are vastly outnumbered by former skeptics who now accept the overwhelming weight of accumulated evidence.

Q: So you’re still convinced, eh?

A: Siberia is one of the regions of the world that seems to be warming most rapidly.Q: It’s that bad, eh? What role does capitalism play in all this?

A: The partial blindness of our current economic system is the single most powerful force behind what seem to be irrational decisions about the global environment. Modern industrial civilization, as presently organized, is colliding violently with our planet’s ecological system.

Q: That sounds serious, Al. What can we do?

A: The United Nations might consider the idea of establishing a Stewardship Council to deal with matters relating to the global environment.

Q: But, Al, aren’t the Kyoto Protocols based on the data provided by the United Nations Environmental Program and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? If the IPCC has been using phony scientific data all these years, maybe it isn’t a good idea to turn the environment of the Earth over to the UN. Well, let me finish up by asking how you feel about automobiles?

A: We now know that their cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront.

Q: Really? What do you propose we do about automobiles?

A: It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period.

Q: So capitalism is bad. Automobiles are bad. And human civilization is bad. No disrespect Al, but you sound loonier than a spotted owl.

All the quotes attributed to Al Gore were taken directly from his book, “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit”, published in 1992. The Earth is in a new, natural cooling cycle that began in 1998.

So far, Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his documentary, has not been available for interviews.

Alan Caruba

Comments Off on My “Interview” with Al Gore … by Alan Caruba

A Political Who’s Who of Global Warming Liars … By Alan Caruba

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by J. D. Longstreet on November 27, 2009

A Political Who’s Who of Global Warming Liars

By Alan Caruba

As the global warming fraud unravels, it’s a good time to look at the politicians who have been some of the most outspoken advocates, using global warming/climate change to advance “Cap-and-Trade” legislation and other related laws and regulations.

Top of the list is President Barack Obama who has made many references to “climate change” and “global warming” to further this national and international fraud. He’ll pick up his Nobel Peace Prize in December; the same one given to Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a few years back. Further proof of his mendacity will be his attendance at the UN Climate Change Conference in Denmark.

Speaking on World Environment Day last June, Obama said of global warming, “We’re going to have to make some tough decisions and take concrete actions if we are going to deal with a potentially cataclysmic disaster.” This mirrors years of similar doomsday statements by former Vice President Al Gore.

This is the kind of drivel Americans and others around the world have heard from their supposed “leaders” for far too long.

As we move through the congressional hierarchy, one of the biggest prevaricators about global warming/climate change has been Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-C) and her counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), manages to wheeze about it from time to time.

Former presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, (D-MA) has been leading the fight for “Cap-and-Trade” but after much reflection former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) concluded his support of global warming was a mistake.

Sen. Kerry said that failure to pass the Senate version of “Cap-and-Trade” (of greenhouse gas emission credits) would be comparable to another 9/11. He also has blamed tornadoes on global warming. The man is a complete idiot.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has uttered every global warming falsehood and has been joined by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). All three have played a critical role in advancing the “Cap-and-Trade” bill despite the fact that it is a massive tax on energy use and based on a lie.

Writing for the Huffington Post in October, Sen. Boxer said, “Global Warming is one of the greatest challenges of our generation. Addressing this challenge also represents enormous opportunities for economic recovery and long term prosperity.” Her commentary was titled, “Telling the Whole Story on Global Warming”!

Never mind that global warming has been the excuse environmental groups have used to stop the building of coal-fired plants, nuclear plants, drilling for oil offshore in our continental shelf, et cetera. There’s no economic recovery to be found in so-called “green jobs” and prosperity is a small light at the end of a very long tunnel as the result of the Obama administration’s investments in “renewable energy” and massive increase of our national debt.

Among the other politicians hovering around Cap-and-Trade have been Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.VA), Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont), and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Sen. Bingaman is a big fan of “renewable energy” (solar and wind) and proposed a nationwide renewable electricity standard even though it provides barely one percent of all the electricity Americans need and use every day.

Among the nation’s prominent governors, California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger has been vocal about environmental issues, many of which have left Californians trapped by idiotic measures ranging from restrictions on fireplaces in new homes or the purchase of large screen television sets. California’s failure to anticipate its growing need for electricity has left it dependent on importing it from other states.

Meanwhile, over at the Environmental Protection Agency, they are using global warming to justify securing the right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, claiming that they “cause” a global warming. The expose of the phony “scientific” data behind this massive fraud should, if truth mattered, end this power grab. The ability to regulate CO2 is the ability to control the use of all energy in the nation. That should be stopped!

Alone among his colleagues, Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma (R) has been the one outstanding voice for reason and for truth about global warming. The odds are that history will not give his courageous effort to expose the massive fraud the recognition he deserves. The nation owes him a debt of gratitude.

The lesson we can draw from this is that the next time any U.S. Senator or Representative, let alone the President and any member of his Cabinet, says anything positive about “global warming” or refers to “climate change” to justify some action, they are lying to you

Comments Off on A Political Who’s Who of Global Warming Liars … By Alan Caruba

A Very Different Generation … By Alan Caruba

A Very Different Generation

By Alan Caruba

 

They are called “Millennials” and, with the election of Barack Obama, have been dubbed “Generation O.” Born from 1980 to 2000, they are as different from their parents as previous generations were different from theirs.

 

It is common that older generations frequently look at the new one as creatures from another planet. Every new generation develops its own slang, has its own cultural heroes, and most importantly has been imprinted by the events of their early years as well as the kind of care they received from their parents. 

 

What distinguishes the Millennials is the way, not just events, but technology has transformed how they interact with each other and the world. Not only are they computer literate, but the Internet has allowed them to have friends from around the world who are available at the touch of a keystroke.

 

Events, of course, are important. My generation grew up during and after World War II. It was a time of enormous economic growth, of the U.S. ascendancy to being a superpower among nations. We lived through the Korean conflict that followed WWII in the 1950s, the birth of rock’n roll and, by the time the 1960s arrived, and I was beginning my 20s the Civil Rights movement erupted.

 

Assassinations marked that decade and the beginning of a long war in Vietnam that ended the lives of more than 50,000 young men born barely a generation after my own. Together we witnessed the first and only resignation of a President as the result of a criminal enterprise in the White House.

 

The Millennials had not yet been born. For them, the Soviet Union with its missiles pointed at American cities would be ancient history by the time they turned ten years of age. Red China would be a nation with which we did an enormous amount of trade. Europe would become the European Union. The Middle East would be a place that exported oil and terrorism

 

For the Millennials, the great trial their generation would face would be terrorism. For them and older generations, September 11, 2001 would change the entire dynamic of world affairs. The wars they know are the two invasions of Iraq; the latter of which has become their Vietnam. Two other events imprinted themselves, the bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City and the murders at Columbine High School.

 

While growing up, the Millennials led a busy, structured life in the 90s and this first decade of a new century. Their parents were devoted to them and the feeling was returned. They were told they were smart and to be inclusive and tolerant of all races, religions and sexual orientations. They were accustomed to being team players and they took being connected 24/7 for granted via cell phones and the Internet. This was a generation that was thoroughly nurtured.

 

It was and is a generation that was deep-fried in every environmental notion, no matter that its science was lacking or deliberately false. Surrounded by the benefits of technology, they have been told that much of it threatens the future of the planet.

 

In a nation where two percent of the population feeds the rest of us with plenty left over for export, they have no real connection with the Earth they worship, knowing nothing about how crops are grown or livestock is maintained and brought to the marketplace. Instead, they worry about “endangered” species and are fearful of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, all of which help generate an abundant food supply. Foolishly they worry that the poles are melting and the seas are rapidly rising, neither of which is happening.

 

As their parents came of age in the Reagan era of the 1980s, they grew up during the feckless years of the Clinton administration, questioning their parents about the sexual dalliance of the President while deluged with cultural messages that casual sex called “hooking up” was acceptable.

 

When George W. Bush became President, they would witness, not only 9/11, but the governmental debacle in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the torment of a strange “war against terror” being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. At home, there was no terror, but few would or could make any connection between those active conflicts and the steady degrading of the threat al Qaeda represents.

 

It is, therefore, no surprise that the Millennials were entranced by the message of “change” offered by President-elect Obama, excited by the prospect of electing the first Afro-American President, and expecting, as my New Orleans friends like to say, to let the good times roll on.

 

There is, therefore, considerable irony that the Millennials are a generation looking at the same disintegrating economy their great-grandparents lived through in the 1930s and 40s, until a world war provided full employment and the post-war years were an explosion of innovation and growth.

 

It is presumed that the lessons of the past have been learned and monetary institutions will address the current problems, but underwriting the entire economy is public trust and confidence. If that disappears, so does the economy.

 

Slowly, the Millennials are discovering that the politicians their parents sent to Congress were so profligate, so stupid, and so intent on their own acquisition of wealth and power that they created the current financial crisis.

 

And now they are learning that those same people are returning to power! The President-elect is surrounding himself by the Clintonians who failed to comprehend the changing global dynamics, focusing instead on Green fairytales of “energy independence”, “global warming”, and the ill-founded belief that global institutions like the United Nations would or could solve international conflicts.

 

The Millennials, now in their twenties and thirties, are saddled with debt, watching jobs disappear, and so utterly devoid of any knowledge of their nation’s history that they know the names of the judges of American Idol, but cannot name the three branches of the American government, nor grasp that real enemies do exist and must be defeated if America is to endure. (The exception, of course, are those serving in our military.)

 

Their grandparents, the “Boomers”, are beginning to retire and will add to those who benefit from the many “entitlement” programs that have been enacted since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and succeeding presidents. Their parent’s primary asset, their homes, are losing value. A university education now leaves them emerging into the workplace with debt.

 

The “change” that will be thrust upon them is a cornucopia of “sacrifices” they will be required to accept in the name of environmentalism and globalism. Sufficient energy will become scarce within a decade and a government that is rapidly socializing banks, investment and insurance firms, may be forced to let a major industry, the Detroit auto manufacturers, go bankrupt before it can be reformed.

 

Norman Thomas, a former U.S. Socialist Party candidate for President in the 1940s, predicted that, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

 

That day has arrived. Barack Obama is its standard-bearer.

 

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

 

© Alan Caruba, December 2008

 

 

 

 

 

“How Obama and the Democrats will Destroy the U.S. Economy” by Alan Caruba

Please see:

How Obama and the Democrats will Destroy the U.S. Economy” by Alan Caruba at:

http://www.stormwarning.bllogdrive.com/

Comments Off on “How Obama and the Democrats will Destroy the U.S. Economy” by Alan Caruba

Rethinking the Middle East … by Alan Caruba

Rethinking the Middle East

By Alan Caruba

 

After 9/11 much of my thinking reflected the general view that Al Qaeda had to be found and destroyed. I thought, too, that Saddam Hussein had to be removed as an obstacle to stability in the Middle East given his invasion of Kuwait and general belligerence.

 

Since those days I have had plenty of time to reassess my views of U.S. policies and to educate myself regarding the Middle East. A lot of my thinking had been based on the inescapable fact that the U.S. and the West needs access to Middle Eastern oil.

 

U.S. policy since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been support for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, providing protection of the sea lanes that transport oil and, in the case of Iraq, protecting the Saudi kingdom against attack. This was the reason for the original U.S. effort to remove Saddam’s Iraq from Kuwait and the subsequent invasion that was based on less than accurate intelligence reports of an Iraqi buildup of weapons of mass destruction.

 

For a long time, there has been a general consensus that a “clash of civilizations” between the West and Islam was inevitable, but it is more of a clash between civilization and nihilism. The global war on terror influenced U.S. actions as the rationale for the second invasion of Iraq was, in part, to introduce democracy to the Middle East.

 

There have been two factors that have complicated U.S. policy toward the Middle East. One was the establishment in 1948 of the state of Israel, a response to the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust that combined with the Zionist movement that began in the late 1800s as a response to the anti-Semitism of Europe and Russia. It received support from the newly-established United Nations, but nations in the Middle East reacted unanimously against the return of Jews to their former, ancient homeland. No surprise here; the Koran demonizes both Jews and Christians.

 

The other factor was the Islamic Revolution that erupted in Iran in 1979, a defeat of the American influence in that nation’s affairs linked in no small measure to its oil. The later defeat of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan led many in the Middle East to believe that Islam could defeat Western efforts to control the region. Western hegemony in the region had begun in earnest following World War I and the end of the Ottoman Empire.

 

The weapon of choice of the new Islamic Revolution was terror and, if invaded, a slow, grinding insurgency. This is why Iraq and future theatres of war will take a long time to play out.

 

What most policy makers in the U.S. and the West tend to ignore is the fact that the nations of the Middle East differed considerably in they way they are governed and, most importantly, in the near total lack of cohesion or cooperation among them.

 

In a recent commentary from the Middle East Forum, Michael Rubin noted that, “For more than a millennium, Damascus, Baghdad and Cairo have competed for leadership of the Arab world.” The establishment of Israel “became a useful template around which they could posture and against whom they could act as each sought to outdo its rivals in a claim to Arab leadership.”

 

Following World War II, a number of Middle East nations adopted the worst of Western concepts of governance, namely fascism and socialism. Baathism rose in Syria and Iraq, but only served to increase their rivalry. As Rubin points out, “Unity is not an Arab virtue,” adding that Baghdad, Cairo and Damascus “will never coexist as partners.”

 

This is not unique to the region because anyone paying any attention knows that all nations act in what they perceive as their own best interests. Some that share common historical and cultural views are more prone toward cooperation while others such as Russia measure their success against U.S. and European strength or weakness. In the Middle East, however, its culture prevents any useful, long term cooperation.

 

In an excellent analysis published in the November edition of Energy Tribune, Leon Hadar, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, demolishes many of the “intellectual constructs that reflect the imaginations of their promoters, not necessarily reality,” adding that “reality tends to bite.” The neocons of the outgoing Bush administration and the Republican Party learned this to their regret.

 

“The time has come,” wrote Hadar, “to challenge the grand idea that the Muslim world (or the Middle East, or the Arab world—terms that seem interchangeable in the American media) has a unique and monolithic political and economic culture that makes it resistant to the West’s modernizing effects.”  The analysis can be read in full at

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1009

 

If Middle Eastern Arabs decide to become “more like us”, it will be at a time of their own choosing. Iranians, being Persian, share Islam, but have their own agenda in the region, giving rise to Arab fears concerning their apparent intent to achieve hegemony there. If and when Iran gets nuclear weapons and starts throwing its weight around, a lot of Arabs are going to begin to think of America as their best friend in the whole world.

 

It should be obvious, too, that the deep schisms within Islam, Shiite and Sunni, will continue to divide the region between the majority Sunnis and what is widely perceived within Islam as a breakaway sect of Shiites who are a majority only in Iraq and Iran. Hadar correctly points out that the Middle East “is a mosaic of nation-states, ethnic groups, religious sects, and tribal groups, and a mishmash of political ideologies, economic systems, and cultural orientations.”

 

All of which suggests to me that the same policy of “containment” that worked for nearly forty-five years regarding the former Soviet communist regime would be a wiser approach to the Middle East than an endless number of military engagements that even our European allies are reluctant to pursue.

 

After World War II, the U.S. occupied the defeated nations of Germany and Japan for about seven years to ensure they would create their own democratic governments and economic systems. After that, the U.S. extended its military protection to them and everywhere else Soviet ambitions threatened.

 

The result was a stalemate in Korea that yielded a successful South Korean state, and a defeat in Vietnam that continues to influence American policy. We still do not recognize communist Cuba, but we have entered into an economic co-dependence with Red China. Go figure?

 

Just as the declining price of oil and gas brought down a Soviet government dependent on these exports, the Russian Federation will face the same contingency. Meanwhile, a decline in the price of a barrel of oil and the price of natural gas may, if long term, require Middle Eastern nations to review their policies as well.

 

The best thing America can do right now is to open up its own vast reserves of oil and natural gas that remain unexplored and untapped off of 85% of our continental shelf and to do the same in ANWR. We need to stop demonizing coal and we need to build more nuclear plants.

 

These actions would put the U.S. back in a position to improve our economy and protect us against pressures from the Middle East, Russia, and elsewhere. I have serious doubts the Obama administration will do this.

 

Things change. U.S. policies will change. Not every policy, but gradually events, some of which we have set in motion in Iraq as part of the global war on terror, will bring about change if we are smart enough, strong enough, and patient enough to watch and wait.

 

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

 

© Alan Caruba, December 2008

 

Comments Off on Rethinking the Middle East … by Alan Caruba

Darwin Got it Wrong and It’s Not What You’re Thinking By Alan Caruba

Posted in Anxiety, Education, Endangered Species, environment, Global Warming Hoax, Magnetic Reversal of the Poles by J. D. Longstreet on November 29, 2008

Darwin Got it Wrong and It’s Not What You’re Thinking

By Alan Caruba

 

Charles Darwin got it wrong. This is not to disparage the man. Science is an ever evolving process and scientific theories are subject to being replaced by newer knowledge. Most certainly, Darwin (1809-1882) got everyone thinking about evolution, but the problem is that evolution is not a slow process. It happens very fast.

 

Indeed, Darwin’s friend, the famed biologist, Thomas Huxley, supported aspects of Darwin’s theory, but didn’t believe that evolution was gradual. Then, too, Darwin had to contend with those who believe that Noah built an ark and put two of all the creatures of the Earth on it. Religion is a great comfort, but it is no substitute for science.

 

I first became acquainted with Robert W. Felix through is book, Not by Fire, but by Ice, that pointed out that the Earth is on the cusp of a new ice age. Insofar as the Earth is now fully a decade into a new cycle of cooling, one that could last several decades or evolve into a new, full blown ice age, Felix not only got it right, but, in the course of writing his book, discovered an even more frightening scenario.

 

Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps: The True Origin of the Species is Felix’s new book (available from www.iceagenow.com) and, were it not for fans like myself and others, it is not likely to make it to the cover of leading news magazines or become a segment on “Sixty Minutes.” It will be largely ignored by the mainstream news media for the same reason they ignored his first book. Enthralled by the bogus “global warming” hoax, the mainstream media will find his new book equally appalling for its presentation of facts that run contrary to their ignorance.

 

Felix is far from alone in this view that new species are not the result of a long accretion of changes. The late paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) popularized that field of science with articles and books. Gould noted, “Gradualism is not a fact a fact of nature. Most new species appear with a bang, not a protracted crescendo.” Fossil records demonstrate that a species remains unchanged for millions of years before abruptly disappearing, “only to be replaced just as rapidly with a species that is, though clearly related, substantially different. Nature does take leaps.”

 

Felix’s great talent comes both in his ability to read and absorb the writings of scientists from different fields of study, and in his ability to explain complex issues to people like myself. I always remind readers that, while I am a science writer, I am not a scientist. Felix is a science writer and one who brings a great deal of passion to his quest to understand the history of the Earth and the life that appears to distinguish it from others in our galaxy.

 

While researching ice ages for his previous book, he became intrigued by a phenomenon that always coincides with them, magnetic reversals. In addition to mass extinctions of species that always accompanied magnetic reversals, Felix and others noticed that new species replaced them. For example, human beings are, in the long history of the Earth, 4.5 billion years, are “blindingly new”, having existed a mere 200,000 years.

 

“Mass extinctions,” writes Felix, “have been the rule, rather than the exception, for the 3.5 billion years that life has existed on this planet. Almost identical, each extinction was abrupt, each was extensive, and each was caused by some temporary, unexplainable event.”

 

Permit me to pause at this point and note the vanity and idiocy of those who demand that humans must conserve every species on Earth, no matter the cost involved. This nation has spent billions via the Endangered Species Act. In a similar fashion, the notion that humans are responsible for a non-existent “global warming” is the justification for measures that will wreck the economies of nations and cause untold losses of human life thanks to famines that should be avoided.

 

The next time you hear or read the word “environmentalist”, you should also hear and read “fascist” for the core of the environmental movement is the belief that human beings are “a cancer” on the Earth and should be reduced to a minimum.

 

The real threat to life on Earth are magnetic reversals, as revealed by magnetostratigraphy, the study of the magnetic properties of ancient layers of sediment (strata) now hardened into rock. Major reversals “appear to occur in sync with ice ages” and other measurements of time. “And it happens fast!” says Felix.

 

The Earth is at the end of a cyclical interglacial period. Such periods are about 11,500 years in length and it has been 11,500 years since the last ice age. That portends that another magnetic reversal is due as well.

 

Though decried as “deniers”, those of us who have been skeptical of the claims of Al Gore and the legion of global warming charlatans, the real deniers are those refuse to acknowledge the facts put forth and explained in Felix’s new book.

 

Those who would have you dramatically alter your lifestyle, by ending the use of oil, natural gas, and coal for energy, by installing thousands of wind turbines and miles of solar panels, are willfully ignoring the signs that the Earth is poised to enter a new age in which life as we know it—including our own—will be dramatically changed and to a large extent even exterminated.

 

There is nothing humans can do about this.

 

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

 

© Alan Caruba, November 2008

 

 

 

Comments Off on Darwin Got it Wrong and It’s Not What You’re Thinking By Alan Caruba

Turning Boom into Bust … by Alan Caruba

Turning Boom into Bust

By Alan Caruba

 

Energy is called “the master resource” because every other aspect of life operates off of it. Nations that are rich in energy resources such as oil, natural gas, and coal, grow wealthy.

 

There is also something called “the curse of oil” because, if the price per barrel drops, the fate of some nations goes with it. This is the case, for example, of the former Soviet Russia whose government collapsed when it could no longer secure hard currency when oil and gas prices fell. Venezuela is an economic basket case these days, having nationalized oil and most of its financial and business sectors.

 

The history of nationalized oil and gas-rich nations is that they tend not to invest in their energy industries. They do not engage in sufficient exploration. They do not expand their capacity to extract their natural resources or to refine it. We have seen otherwise oil-rich nations like Mexico encounter financial tremors as in the 1990s when the Clinton administration had to loan Mexico billions to keep it functioning.

 

America has adopted anti-energy policies because of incessant environmental propaganda about “dirty” coal, out of the fear of nuclear power, and the refusal to permit exploration of 85% of the continental shelf and, of course, Alaska’s ANWR area, a tiny fraction of that State’s landmass.

 

If Congress imposes a windfall profits tax on the American oil industry, it will quite simply wreck the economy. As my friend, Seldon B. Graham, Jr., a longtime oil industry attorney as well as a petroleum engineer, points out, “”President Jimmy Carter started the ethanol subsidy on November 9, 1978 and signed the oil windfall profits tax on April 2, 1980.”

 

In effect, Carter put in motion an anti-oil policy that has existed for over three decades. Why is that a bad thing? The ethanol policy has severely disrupted the price of food worldwide as corn is diverted into fuel. The justification for this is “energy independence” from the purchase of foreign oil, but U.S.-produced oil has always been cheaper than imported oil.

 

If, however, the government creates conditions under which it is simply too risky, too expensive or prohibited to explore for more oil reserves, obviously oil production declines. There has been a 59% decline in U.S. oil production since 1980, the year the windfall profits tax was imposed. It was later repealed, but U.S. oil companies have a responsibility to their investors to act prudently and that has driven them to explore for oil outside of the U.S. or, to put it another way, to find foreign oil.

 

When you add in the idiotic ethanol mandates, you compound the problem. Graham points out that, “After thirty years, U.S. ethanol production was only able to produce less than 3% of our oil demand last year.” Moreover, “ethanol cost taxpayers $3.3 billion in subsidies in 2007.” Environmental claims that ethanol is cleaner than oil are false. Not only do you get less energy and poor mileage when ethanol is blended with gasoline, it actually emits more carbon dioxide per mile. “It is absolutely impossible for ethanol to replace foreign oil,” says Graham.

 

The justification for a windfall profits tax on oil companies ignores, for example, that ExxonMobil, just one of the few remaining oil companies operating in the U.S., pays more than $100 billion in taxes on the average. 

 

Less than 11% of ExxonMobil’s profits come from marketing and refining in the United States and the company recently announced it was spinning off its retail outlets.  Yes, it made great profits in recent years, but it also had enormous, risk-filled expenses.

 

Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies will give them cause to consider moving their corporate headquarters to other more congenial nations. The city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates has been engaged in a vast office building effort, perhaps anticipating the movement of corporate headquarters.

 

Americans greeted the expiration of the ban on offshore exploration and drilling with the expectation that American oil would begin to flow and thus lower their costs for this vital national asset. That will not happen if the President or a Democrat controlled Congress reinstates the ban and/or imposes a windfall profits tax.

 

The city of Houston has been enjoying a boom due to the increase in the cost of a barrel of oil. Even at $80 dollars a barrel, it is enough to have created “its strongest resurgence in more than 20 years” according to a 2007 New York Times article about Houston. “Some energy companies are expanding and putting up new buildings.” Others, like Schlumberger among the hundreds of service providers to the energy industry have established their headquarters in Houston.

 

Houston is home to the headquarters of ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and foreign owned companies like Citgo, BP and Royal Dutch Shell also maintain corporate offices there.

About half of Houston’s jobs, an estimated 1.1 million positions, are tied to the energy industry. The impact of a windfall profits tax would prove devastating to Houston.

 

Destroying the oil industry in America, a process that has been in place since the Carter administration, has left the nation vulnerable to foreign sources. The U.S. already imports some 70% of its oil. There has been a significant decline in the exploration and development of national reserves.

 

Unleashing the energy industries in America could dramatically improve our present financial troubles. Congress, having turned boom into bust, has a historical opportunity to reverse that trend.

 

Editor’s Note: “Why Your Gasoline Prices Are High” by Seldon B. Graham ($10.95) is available from Amazon.com.

 

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com. He blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.

 

© Alan Caruba, November 2008

 

Comments Off on Turning Boom into Bust … by Alan Caruba

Planet Wide Anxiety Bubbling To The Surface.

Posted in Anxiety, Election, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Global, Global Warming Hoax, Iran, Islam, Islamofacists, Israel, Leadership, Obama, Paranoia, War by J. D. Longstreet on November 18, 2008

Planet Wide Anxiety Bubbling To The Surface.

By J. D. Longstreet

******************************

 

The human brain has this tiny little part called the amygdale. It’s in that tiny part of the brain where fear is generated and the fight or flee order is given to the rest of the human body. It is where fear is born.  As silly as it may seem, it is the reason we humans have survived on this planet so far and, if we are to survive much longer, we are going to have to begin listening to it again.

 

If you are honest with yourself, you will have to admit that for sometime now that amygdale of yours has been elbowing you to get your attention.  It is saying, “Hey, something is wrong!  Something is about to happen, prepare, prepare.”  OK, so it is a chemical thing and the amygdale doesn’t speak.  Well, if it did, I’d bet it would say something like that, though.

 

If you have been paying close attention to the news lately, and I don’t mean election news, I mean the news that, for the most part never even made the “A” section of your newspaper, you have noticed that certain world leaders have been hinting strongly about a coming event, or events, that is/are imminent and will cause great distress on the people of the planet.  Even the US VP-Elect has hinted at it when he mentioned something bad happening within six months of Obama’s inaugurating.  Other world leaders have alluded to it as well.

 

Remember Biden’s cryptic warning a few weeks ago, at the Sheraton in Seattle, Washington:  “I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate, And he’s (Obama) gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

 

Well, whether Obama’s reaction to WHATEVER IT IS is right, or not, remains to be seen.  But that is not what is troubling me at the moment.  No. I am more concerned with what the “THING”, the “event”, the “occurrence”, that is going to happen is! 

 

Seems to me the first worry should be the chances of a terrorist nuclear attack on the continental United States. As a matter of fact, we don’t even know if one has already been attempted or not.  Such is the power of the Homeland Security agency.  A spokesman for Al Qaida has said their goal is:  “to kill 4 million Americans—2 million of them children—and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.”  He went on to explain that this is what justice requires to balance the scales for casualties supposedly inflicted on Muslims by the United States and Israel.

 

It would take over thirtenn hundred terrorist attacks equal to the attack on 9-11  to reach that figure.  Or,  the terrorists could do it with just one nuclear attack.  See?

 

There is an excellent article on this very thing  titled: “How Likely is a Nuclear Terrorist Attack on the United States?” at:

 

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13097/how_likely_is_a_nuclear_terrorist_attack_on_the_united_states.html

 

But, this concern would only affect the people of the United States. The anxiety we are speaking of is felt around the world.  There must be something else.

 

May I tell you what I think it is?  I think our friends in the Green Movement have succeeded in scaring the wits out of people with their ever-present chant that the world is ending… right now!  It isn’t, of course.  It isn’t even getting warmer. In fact, it is getting cooler.  Yet, millions upon millions of people, the world over, have bought into the propaganda and as a result, they fear for their lives, and the lives of their children and grandchildren, from a threat of something that doesn’t even exist.  Talk about a Bogy Man!

 

I think this explains how a man as inexperienced and as devoid of substance as Barack Obama won an election to be the next President of the United States.  We have a populace so used to accepting the spin of the world’s Mainstream Media that they readily bought into the spin on Obama. They have been conditioned to do that, you see.

 

My generation is not as easily fooled.  My mother used to say:  “J.D., you won’t believe ox horns will hook until you’ve been gored!”  She was right. I still don’t. So what is my generation afraid of?  We’re afraid of what is going to happen if the younger generation continues blindly following the leadership of those nefarious characters who have molded them and conditioned them to accept the results of sloppy science as fact, and accepting that they must live out their days with the Damocles Sword of their self-imposed destruction of the world hanging over their heads. Remember the fairy tale of the King Who Had No Clothes?  The Green Movement has no clothes, but as in the fairy tale, everyone is afraid to speak up and question where the facts are.  I suspect you will find them in the closet alongside the King’s clothes.

 

If this were a movie this is the point in the story where the protagonist would grab his sidekick by the shoulders and shake him violently for a second or two and proclaim: “Get hold of yourself man! Start thinking!”  But it is difficult to do the entire world that way.

 

Now, I have just scratched the surface of the underlying cause(s) of the thread of fear running through the psyche of the human race these days.  There is more, much more.

 

Another thing comes to mind.  The new President-Elect apparently is set to offer a divided city of Jerusalem on the alter of Middle East peace and, to sweeten the deal, we are hearing rumours that there is also a possibility that he will be willing to offer up Israel’s nuclear arsenal, as well.  Our friends at The Liberty Sphere have an article you should read on this very thing at:

 

http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2008/11/confirmed-obama-supports-dividing.html 

 

And there’s another excellent piece by Caroline Glick at www.CarolineGlick.com .  The article is entitled: “The Perils Ahead.”  You’ll find it at:

 

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2008/11/the_perils_ahead.asp

 

Yes, these are perilous times.  I have no solace to offer. It is well to note, I suppose, that Nature has a way of warning us, even when we are not listening, that trouble is brewing.  These days, a little paranoia, I think, is a good thing!

 

J. D. Longstreet 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on Planet Wide Anxiety Bubbling To The Surface.

What Media Objectivity?

Media Objectivity is Dead!  But Most Americans Just Noticed.

 By J. D. Longstreet

Pardon me if I stand and cheer when I read and hear reports of newspaper organizations crumbling and going under, some out of business.  Forgive me if I applaud loudly as the “unbiased” media gets it’s due.

 

It is always good to see the arrogant ones get what’s coming to them and of all the arrogant businesses on the face of the planet; the news media is certainly the most arrogant.

 

This past election cycle in the United States the News Media dropped all pretence of being unbiased.  They decided early on that Obama was their candidate and they did everything possible to promote him and his campaign… and they succeeded.  To hell with what the readers and viewers wanted! To hell with being fair!  The media knew Obama was the best thing for America and they went about making absolutely sure he was elected. 

 

It was the sorriest, must dishonest, most dishonorable thing I have ever seen done by the news media.

 

The have been losing subscribers and listeners and viewers by the droves and yet, they hang on to the overt liberalism in their biased reporting — all the while insisting that they are not the least bit biased and that all their reporting is “right down the middle”. Why, even a blind man can see their claims to no bias are a falsity.

 

Have you ever wondered how blogging suddenly came out of nowhere and became such an overnight success?  Well, the bias of the Mainstream Media is your answer.  People have grown tired of their false claims and their “in the tank” reporting for all causes liberal and many decided they could do a better job of it by simply telling readers right at the banner head of their website that yes, this site is biased in favor of conservatism, or even liberalism. Surfers on the Internet like that honesty.  They surf to a site, see the declaration of it’s biases right on the front page and, Walla, they like it!  The Web Log business took off like a rocket and shows no sign of losing strength or popularity among users of the Internet.

 

Cal Thomas has an excellent piece on this very thing over at:

http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/11/04/media_meltdown?page=full&comments=true We recommend you drop by and read it.  He is right on the money.

 

Thomas mentions an article titled: “The Death of Objectivity” in the Colorado Springs Gazette.  That, too, is a must read and you’ll find it here:

 

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f13/death-objectivity-journalists-work-elect-obama-33863/ 

 

For years now, I have been relying on what I refer to as “off shore” media to access news of current events in America.  I simply do not trust my own country’s media to supply a straight forward report on what happened, who was involved and when… basically, the fundamentals of a news story, and allow me to draw my own conclusions.  I have grown weary of being told what I should think about a news story, how I will be expected to react to that story, and why I should react in a certain way.  I’m a big boy.  I’m fairly well educated and I have nearly seven decades of experience in a whole lot of things including the broadcast news business.

 

Will the Mainstream Media recover?  Possibly.  But I doubt they will survive in the same configuration.  Already, many have established a presence on the Internet, experimenting with the “New Media,” if you will.  But it will take many decades to recover, even if they are successful.  I expect their turf has been lost to the New Media, the Internet. If one could point to any single show of bias from the media as the “coup de grace,” it would have be their almost total and blatant bias for Obama the democratic candidate for President of the US. (Now President-Elect)  It will take at least a generation for Americans to finally “get over it” as they say.  Me? I will never forgive them for it.

 

On the other hand, it just might be that the News business has reverted to it’s past when all the news outlets were overtly biased.  In which case the newspaper business, as a hard copy, on paper, delivered to your door each morning, is dead.  It’s as dead as their objectivity.

 

J. D. Longstreet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on What Media Objectivity?