Think About It

Global Warming or Is It?

 A recent article in Live Science states the effects of Global Warming in Antarctica are overblown, but this hasn’t been picked up by the mainstream media.  The finding disputes an earlier flawed study that showed the Antarctica was warming at an alarming rate over the past century.

The Antarctica is of particular interest because of the substantial amount of water locked up in its ice sheets. If that water begins to melt, sea levels around the globe could rise and swamp coastal areas.

The new study, written up in the April issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, marks the first time that researchers have been able to give a progress report on Antarctic climate model projections by comparing climate records to model simulations. 

Temperature gap

Monaghan and his team found that while climate models projected temperature increases of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 degrees Celsius) over the past century, temperatures were observed to have risen by only 0.4 F (0.2 C).

"This is showing us that, over the past century, most of Antarctica has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe," Monaghan said.

This significant finding is being treated as a non-event as far as the Global Warming advocates are concerned.  If it doesn’t fit into their master plan, then it is to be buried. 

Question:

How can we develop a a universal standard by which we measure Global Warming?

Kansas Governor Sebelius Vetoes Power Plants

Kansas is emblematic of the war between sanity and the eco-nuts.  At issue are two 700 megawatt coal-fired power plants that were to be built in Holcolmb, Kansas, a small farming town of 2,000 that sits on the plains of southwest Kansas.  The Kansas legislature has tried and failed twice to build the two power plants.  Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius,  backed by the Sierra Club, vetoed the bills.  The Kansas legislature failed to muster the necessary number of votes to override her veto even though riders were placed in the final bill that would have mandated the energy company, Sunflower, to invest huge amounts in wind and solar energy.

The Governor’s veto is especially ironic in light of the sharply rising cost of oil, not to mention its availability.  But, in the most ironic twist of all, the U.S. has the largest coal reserves in the world.  America is the Saudi Arabia of coal and has known coal reserves of 275 billion tons, which is nearly twice that of Russia and China.

Coal plant opponents are trumpeting the defeat of the power plant bills, saying this is the turning point at which Kansas will lead the country away from old energy sources toward more environmentally friendly types of energy.  Governor Sebelius, who is frequently mentioned as a possible running mate for Barack Obama, is asking legislators to work with her on a new comprehensive energy policy.

As could be expected, the vote fell along regional lines. Legislators who live in and represent the affected area voted for the bills.  Legislators in the more heavily populated eastern regions of Kansas voted against the bills.

The eco-nuts would have everyone believe that Conservatives love the smell of dirty air and prefer that their children and their children’s children be raised on a polluted planet.

The environmentalists have effectively shut down the building of more nuclear and coal fired power plants.  Solar has proved dicey at best in providing reliable ongoing power, so that leaves us with wind energy.
Wind turbines, as an auxiliary energy source shows some promise, but they are expensive to install - and the wind doesn’t blow all the time.
And, wouldn’t you know it, they are opposed by many environmentalists because they kill birds.  So that leaves us with.......?

As usual, the eco-nuts are long on criticisms, but short on coming up with VIABLE alternatives.

Questions:

At what point, will the people wake up and bring some sanity back to our energy policy?

How long will it take to produce viable alternative energy sources?

Will Obama adopt an eco-nut stance on energy?

Are Oil Companies Responsible for the Food Shortages?

Well, who knew.  It seemed like a good idea at the time.  There is a good chance that Congress will have to repeal the ethanol bill that they passed just four months ago.   In an environmental epiphany, Congress passed the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) which requires suppliers to produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022.  Around 45% of the  ethanol would come from corn.  The bill was pushed by Democrats, but it also enjoyed the support of many Republicans, including President Bush.

Shortly after the bill passed, food shortages began to occur.  These shortages, in turn, caused increases in the price of food.

A coalition of grocers, oil companies, and livestock producers opposed the bill.   Environmentalists and farm groups supported the bill.

Many are now saying the food crisis is overblown.  There was a major tortilla shortage in Mexico, but tortillas are made primarily of white corn, not yellow corn which is used in making ethanol.  Brewers blamed corn shortages on the rising beer prices.  Only one problem, rice and barley are the main ingredients of beer, not corn.

A congressional subcommittee plans to hold a hearing next week on the RFS.

All of this brings us to some interesting questions:

If President Bush is in bed with the oil companies, as the liberals allege, then why did he openly support the bill?

Are the oil companies manipulating the price of corn in order to kill ethanol production?

Did Congress act too hastily when they passed the ethanol bill?

Will Congress be forced to repeal it?

A Solution to Global Warming

  There is a school of thought that advances the theory that we will, in effect, save ourselves from the from the doomsday scenario of Global Warming -- because many scientists say we will run out of oil and gas long before the ice caps melt and searing temperatures envelop our planet.

  Geologists from the University of Uppsala in Sweden are saying we have overestimated the amount of oil reserves left in the world.  The Swedish scientists report their studies show there is up to 80 percent less than previously predicted.  Oil production levels will peak in 10-15 years.

  By 2010-2015, production levels will reach maximum levels and natural gas production will peak shortly afterwards.  Many earlier studies by other noted geologists predicted production levels would peak by 2050.  When peak production occurs, fuel prices will reach disastrous levels, which will result in much less fossil fuel being burned.

  With far less fossil fuels being burned, there will not be enough carbon dioxide (CO2) to affect climate change, so the doomsday scenario predicted by the proponents of the Global Warming theory are unlikely.

  The Swedish geologists aren’t the first to advance the “Peak Oil” theory.
The Peak Oil theory was first announced by Shell geologist Dr. Marion King Hubbert in 1956.

  Whether we start to run out of oil in 2010 or 2050, it will have a big impact on all facets of our life.  The real question is will this or has this affected our foreign policy with respect to the Middle-East?    Will alternative fuel sources be developed in time to effectively replace fossil fuels?  Is the “Peak Oil” theory viable?

Oil and Gas Prices - Who is to Blame?

  I watched the Congressional hearings on the high price of gasoline.  As usual, instead of looking to their own failures, members of Congress once again dragged the heads of the major oil companies before them to listen to Democratics launch into tirades against excessive oil profits.  Despite all of the hot air emanating from their lofty platforms, several interesting facts came out regarding our oil policies.

PRICE OF GAS AT THE PUMP - A BREAKDOWN

1) 70% of the price of gas at the pump is from the price of crude oil.

2) 15% of the price of gas at the pump is from federal and state taxes.

3)   8% of the price of gas at the pump is profit.

4)   7% of the price of gas at the pump is other costs.

U.S. FUEL CONSUMPTION

10,000 gallons of gas per second is burned in the U.S.

20 rail cars of coal is burned every minute in the U.S.

HOW MUCH OF THE WORLD’S OIL RESERVES IS CONTROLLED BY U.S. OIL COMPANIES

Less than 6%

THE DEAL ON ETHANOL

Ethanol costs $3.15 per gallon to produce.

Conventional gasoline costs $2.70 to produce.

Any blend of ethanol that exceeds 10% will seriously impact our food supply.

THE DEAL ON THE FAMED CANADIAN OIL SANDS

It will be 10-15 years before the U.S. sees much gasoline coming from Canadian oil sands. 

The maximum amount of our fuel needs that will be met:  10%

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

The good news:  Oil companies are investing heavily into wind, solar, and bio-fuels.

Bad news:  Alternative fuels will have no significant impact before 2030.

GOVERNMENT SCREWUPS

The government will not even allow oil companies to explore to see how much we have in the way of oil reserves.

Splash & Dash -  U.S. law states oil companies can add 1 gallon of bio-diesel to 99 gallons of conventional diesel and they will be paid a $100 bonus  ---  if they export it!

HIGH POINT OF THE HEARING

When Marsha Blackburn, R-Memphis-TN, noted for the record that the single largest beneficiary of high gasoline consumption is:   The government who, receives 15% of the retail price of gas in taxes!

What Else Can We Screw Up?

  Well meaning liberals running amok often result in unintended consequences.   Most of us remember a few years ago when many in Puerto Rico demanded the U.S. Navy get out of the Puerto Rico island of Vieques.  It wasn’t long before well intended activists and their Hollywood friends joined Puerto Ricans to shake their fists at the American Navy.

In 2002, the bombing exercises were transferred to an Air Force bombing range in central Florida not far from Jacksonville and Pensacola Naval Air Stations. In January, many of the protesters were back in Puerto Rico, celebrating the final bombing exercise on Vieques and waved Puerto Rican flags and placards that read "U. S. Navy, get out of Puerto Rico."

The following February, Rumsfeld announced that the U. S. Navy will close the Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico in 2004, eliminating 1200 civilian jobs as well as 700 military positions.This naval facility is estimated to have put nearly $300 million annually into the local economy.

  The next day a stunned Governor Sila Calderon, held a news conference in San Juan protesting the base closure as a serious blow to the Commonwealth's fragile economy. The governor stated that "The people of Puerto Rico don't now or never did have an interest in closing the Vieques bombing range or the Roosevelt Roads naval base. We are interested in both staying in Puerto Rico .

  When asked, the Commander-in-Chief, Western Atlantic Command, said, "Without Vieques, I see no further need for the facility at Roosevelt Roads. None."  Chalk one up for the protesters.

  This isn’t the only time that a bunch of well meaning liberals have shot themselves in their collective feet. Let us take the matter of energy.  First, they railed against nuclear power plants, and they effectively brought the building of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. to a halt.  That left oil and coal.  World demand for oil is rapidly sidelining oil as a fuel to produce electricity.  That leaves coal, which is plentiful in the U.S., but environmentalists have opposed burning coal to produce power.  A huge legislative fight over this issue is taking place in Kansas as we speak.  That leaves wind and solar, right?  Environmentalists are now lobbying against wind turbines.  Why?  Well, a few birds are getting killed by the giant blades.  And so it goes, the short sighted continue to paint all of us into the proverbial corner.

  One wonders if the same group isn’t doing the same thing to us with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan?  If Obama and / or Hillary Clinton is elected in November we will surely pull out of those countries.  When they abrogate our responsibilities in that portion of the world, it will set off a new unforeseen chain of events.  What next?

    

Al Gore's Double Standard

The Liberal gospel states that Republicans are the fat cats in our society.  They make up 100% of the group who control and manipulate greed in America.  It appears that one of the great Liberal icons may be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

   According to Business Week, Al Gore is reportedly in line to make around $50 million when Current TV, a TV channel that he co-founded, goes public.  Despite the fact that the parent company, Current Media, has lost $31 million over the past three years, the company is forging ahead with its plans with a stock issue, which will raise an estimated $100 million.  Some of the money, allegedly, will go to lenders, who include some major Democratic fund raisers.

  The article notes that Gore and his partner are collecting huge salaries from a company that hasn't shown a profit in three years.  Each of them reportedly drew down $491,677 last year - in cash.  This apparently was in addition to Gore receiving a bonus of $550,000 for helping the company put together affiliate agreements and a management team.

  The Business Week article further notes that Gore and his partner will control all of the company's B shares, which gives them 10 votes for each of their shares while the Class A stockholders would only have one vote per share.

The IPO price has yet be set, but estimates are in the $13-$15 per share price range.  Gore reportedly owns 3.7 million shares.

  It appears Mr. Green isn't above making a little green for himself and his friends.

Environmental Wackos or Domestic Terrorists?

"Ernie" has some views he would like to share regarding the environmental wackos who recently torched several multi-million-dollar homes in the Seattle area.  It's interesting to note that one or more of these homes had won "Green Awards" by using recycled lumber, solar heating, etc.

  "The following incident is certainly not the first criminal act perpetrated by wacko environmental or animal rights groups, but it is the first time I'd ever heard of ELF....the Environmental Liberation Front.  It seems this organization has some kind of disagreement with Seattle building codes, so to show their displeasure they totally destroyed a brand new luxury housing development just north of the city, then crawled back under a rock with the rest of the roaches and reptiles. Apparently this group isn't into protesting air pollution because they destroyed the development by burning it down.  The smoke, fire and ashes rained down on the surrounding area for several hours.  Also it wouldn't be fair to call them tree huggers because it seems they didn't have much concern for the thousands of nearby trees catching on fire. Of course, we can't rule out the fact that they are committed tree huggers, just not very smart ones.

 

It makes you wonder how these lunatic groups get started and how their off-the-wall opinions become so accepted by so many.  For example, why aren't we drilling for oil in Alaska and building refineries?  Is it because we like being held prisoner and extorted by OPEC or because oil companies can't afford it?  No, it's to appease the endless parade of wacko environmentalists.  How have they become so politically powerful?  Very simply it's because the loony liberals of the Democratic party have adopted their cause, given them a platform from which to express their preposterous views, and...God help us...given them a level of credibility.  This isn't just the libs in politics, it's actors, musicians, artists and main stream media types. Is their cause so just that they should be afforded all this clout?  I don't know, you tell me.  Isn't this the same group that blames America for all the ills of the world; who said (in the 70's) we're headed for another Ice Age;  who now says we're into Global Warming and New York will be flooded in a few short years from arctic melting ?   Sounds like a pretty credible group to me.

 

Whatever the reason for their political clout, one thing is blatantly obvious.  Anyone who overtly disagrees with them is immediately smeared and silenced.  Opponents have become afraid to express their opposing views for fear of losing their jobs, credibility and/or status within their chosen careers.  After all, the wackos are politically correct and we opponents are just uninformed boobs who probably own a bible and vote Republican.

 

Heaven help us if something isn't done to curb this misguided insanity.  Reason and facts needs to be brought to the front by opponents with credibility, knowledge and above all, courage. Environmental issues need to be openly debated by experts from both fronts.  That means civilized debate, not each group screaming at the other.  Since shouting down and out-talking the other group is the established tactic of environmentalists, I don't see a debate coming anytime in the near future."