When Candidates Are Dangerously Wrong
00ZNB
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3071
There is a price for being an idiot. Think about that the next time you
fill up your gas tank.
Americans have painted themselves into the corner on energy and the two
presumptive candidates for President are ready to finish off the nation
with the worst possible "solutions."
Sen. Barrack Obama is talking of "windfall profits" taxes on the oil
companies, thus threatening to take away the money they need to invest
in exploration, extraction, refining and delivery of the gas and oil we
need to fuel our cars and trucks, and heat our homes.
It takes up to ten years between finding a new reserve of oil and
actually delivering it. It's been nearly four decades since any oil
company has built a new refinery because the United States has made it
too expensive to do so thanks to lawsuits and a maze of environmental
laws. As for exploring for oil in the U.S. or off-shore, would you spend
millions doing that if you knew the government wouldn't let you drill or
extract it?
Like Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama believes in global warming even though the
planet stopped its long, completely natural warming in 1998. The Earth
is cooling, but please don't let that get in the way of either candidate
proposing "solutions" to address a drastic warming that is not
happening.
Sen. John McCain says that global warming in undeniable even though
literally hundreds of scientists worldwide say it isn't happening. In
March I attended a conference on climate change sponsored by the
Heartland Institute. It attracted over 500 meteorologists,
climatologists, economists, and other very smart people from around the
world who sat through two days of presentations and seminars all jammed
with information confirming that there is no global warming, if you
interpret this to mean a massive rise in the temperature of the planet.
Sen. McCain, however, is worried about "carbon fuel emissions" at a time
when the cost of those carbon fuels, gasoline in particular, is going
through the ceiling thanks, not to a lack of supply, but the speculators
in the world's commodity exchanges.
It is moronic to worry about carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) when this
gas, vital to the growth of every piece of vegetation and all life on
Earth, constitutes a mere 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere.
Look up at the sky above you. It's about 95% water vapor. You know,
water as in hydrogen and oxygen molecules. You drink it. You wash in it.
You swim in it. There are large bodies of it called oceans. Those oceans
which normally retain and release 80-90% of the Earth's heat are now
cooling!
So neither one of the candidates has a grasp of economics or science and
we are about to elect one of them the next President of the United
States of America!
Meanwhile, The New York Times on May 11 published an editorial,
"Rethinking Ethanol" in which the geniuses who write such things have
concluded that maybe diverting food products like corn into a fuel
product that provides less mileage per gallon, costs more to produce
than gasoline, and adds its own pollution to the air, is probably not a
good idea. Their solution? End the tax subsidy that goes to ethanol
producers.
According to The New York Times, "The other reason is a spate of studies
suggesting that some biofuels-corn ethanol in particular-could
accelerate global warming." You have to be a special kind of idiot to
(1) advocate a Congressional mandate for billions of gallons of ethanol
as a gasoline additive and (2) continue to maintain that global warming
is occurring.
The New York Times has been lying about global warming since the 1980s.
The good news is that it is laying off large numbers of its reporters
and editors. Its circulation has been sinking like a stone and maybe
someday it will be sold on street corners as a single broadsheet hawked
by boys shivering in the snow while shouting, "Read all about it! No
more global warming!"
If you get the feeling that the United States is heading over the cliff
for failing to anticipate and encourage its energy industries, for
codifying in law requirements to deal with a non-existent problem, and
for refusing to reverse course, you're right.
There is a price for being an idiot. Think about that the next time you
fill up your gas tank.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Let me say it plainly: The environmental movement has been taken over
by anti-capitalist radicals who are using it to wage war against
capitalism and campaign for liberal Democrats. Protecting the
environment is now number three, or lower, on their list of priorities."
Joe Bast, President, Heartland Institute, One-time Ardent
Environmentalist, Has seen it from both sides.
V-for-Vendicar
between global average temperatures
and CO2 levels since 1998.
As the following data shows, he is a Congenital LIAR.
Positive correlation between CO2 and Global Average Temperaturs since 1998
View with mono spaced font.
| *
| o
| * * * o o *
| o *
| o o *
| *
| oo
| o
|
|
| **
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
* = Data
0 = Computed Regression
Y = Mx+B
M = .009254287 B = 11.03646
Correlation Coefficient .5524405
Seon Ferguson
of oil down? My God you are naive.
"00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote in message
news:482b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Ouroboros_Rex
00ZNB
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:482c0d33$0$22150$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Do you really believe the oil companies want to find ways to keep the
> price of oil down? My God you are naive.
Not really, but I do believe greenie zealots are doing all in their
power to rocket it up!
Now who's naive?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism
V-for-Vendicar
"00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote
> Not really, but I do believe greenie zealots are doing all in their
> power to rocket it up!
> Now who's naive?
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs