September 2011 Archives

By Elmer Beauregard

A new study came out saying that Global Warming will cost Canada billions... (awkward silence)

You're kidding right? How can a warmer Canada be a bad thing?

The study says that the increase costs "will range from effects on agriculture and forestry to rising health care costs in cities and flooding in coastal areas".

Here are a few questions I have about this report

• Wouldn't warmer weather expand Canada's now very short growing season?
• Most Canadians live in southern Canada, wouldn't it getting warmer allow people to live in more of their own country?
• Wouldn't it cause crops and trees to be grown further north into areas which are now under permafrost?
• Couldn't you grow different crops like corn and soybeans which don't do well in Canada now?
• Isn't most of Canada's coastal areas under ice most of the year?
• Wouldn't warmer weather allow Canada to build ports where they can't now like in Hudson Bay?
• If Canada becomes warmer wouldn't this create more tourism?
• I'm not sure what health concerns they're talking about but wouldn't you have less people freezing to death in the winter?
• Was this study paid for by Big Wind?

I was recently in the TwinCitiesNewsTalk studios with Sue Jeffers and had a great time. Listen below.

Listen to us at the the State Far on KKMS with Brad Brandon.

Matthew Boyle, The Daily Caller

The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be "absurd" in application and "impossible to administer" by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats -- at a cost of $21 billion -- to attempt to implement the rules.

The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn't give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency's authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.

The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously -- from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.

These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. "While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance ... may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds," the EPA wrote in a September 16 court briefing.

Read the rest of the article here.

Paul Joseph Watson, prisonplanet.com

Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against "global warming," a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.

The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the "carbon credits" on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.

The company claims residents of Kicucula left in a "peaceful" and "voluntary" manner, and yet the people tell a story of terror and bloodshed.

The rest of the article here.

By Elmer Beauregard

Fox "News" ran this headline today after last night's Republican Presidential debate in Florida.

Romney Tops Perry in Third Debate Showdown

They mention all the candidates in the debate except for the one that actually won the debate Ron Paul, according to there own poll which they took down.

By Elmer Beauregard

Photos from MPR

I have been to the Boundary Waters many times and have seen it change over the years and its not Global Warming that's causing the change but rather man's lack of involvement.

When I first started going to the Boundary Waters in the 70's the portages were well marked, they had signs telling you how long the portage was in rods (which is the length of a canoe) and what the name of the next lake was. This was very helpful when navigating because it showed you on the map where you were, those signs are gone now. I have gotten lost a couple of times because of the lack of these markers.

At some portages there would be crude dock made out of a couple of logs where people could load or unload their canoes, those are all gone. The portages used to be well maintained if a tree fell across it, it was removed. Now the fallen trees are just left there and you have to step over them or under them, with a canoe or a pack on your back this can be challenging.

To those of you who suffered through Al Gore's Climate Reality Project
you saw how he compared the skeptics to the tobacco companies of the
60's. Back then the Tobacco companies hired scientists to study the
health effects of cigarette smoking. He is saying because these
scientists had a vested interest in the outcome of their work, they
found that smoking wasn't harmful. Of course later we discovered that it
was indeed harmful because the evidence was overwhelming.

In a way Al Gore is right, scientists who have a vested interest in
their studies might be prejudice in their work. The problem is Al Gore
is pointing his finger the wrong way. The 97% of Climatologists who get
paid to study Global Warming have a vested interest in Global Warming
being real.

On the other hand scientists who don't have a vested interest have
overwhelmingly said that global warming isn't happening. In fact the
number is just the opposite of what Al is saying, 96% of scientists
don't believe in global warming.

The study that Al mentions came out last year saying 97% off scientists
believe in climate change, they surveyed 1,372 known working climate
researchers and found 97% of them still believe in global warming. I
think this pool is tainted because these are scientist who get paid to
study "Global Warming" which is a conflict of interest. That's like
asking tobacco company scientists if they think smoking is harmful.

CAUTION STRONG LANGUAGE!!

I tried beeping out the swear words, but you can still hear what he's saying.

I took John Denver's big hit "The Eagle & The Hawk" and added a little twist at the end.

by Ed Morrissey, HotAir

Barack Obama's supporters praised him for having it in his joint-session speech last night on job creation. A national economy needs plenty of it in order to expand. Consumers consider it one of the most pressing economic issues they face. Yet Obama's speech was curiously absent of any mention of one word ... energy.

That's right; you could look it up. There wasn't one single mention in a speech about jobs and economic stimulation that addressed the need for the energy necessary to support it. Never mind that part of the problem in the economy comes from a blunted demand that can be directly associated in part with the erosion in buying power created by rapidly-rising fuel costs, or that a significant share of the reluctance to invest in American economic expansion comes from the considerable uncertainty of regulatory assaults on energy production and the impact on future energy costs.

Obama simply acted as if the problem doesn't exist at all.

Read the rest of the article here.

Government Report: America's Combined Energy Resources Largest on Earth Far larger than those of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined

Check out our newest video, a parody of Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode"

By Elmer Beauregard

During last night's Republican Presidential Debate at the Reagan Libary, the subject of Global Warming came up and this is what Jon Hunstman had to say on the subject.

"When you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, ... we can't run from science,"

If I were up on the stage I would have told Jon that he is wrong, its not 98% its only 97% of Climate Scientists that still believe in Global Warming. He is just misquoting this study that surveyed 1,372 known working climate researchers and found 97% of them still believe in global warming. But this is a misleading study in my opinion because its just about Climate Scientists. That's like asking Acorn members if they're Democrats.

When in truth about 96% of all scientists are skeptical, for instance, did you know that 66% of Meteorologists DON'T believe in man-made Global Warming. There is a a website called The Petition Project which has 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that they don't believe in man-made global warming.

So let's do the math 97% of 1,372 is 1,330 who still believe in global warming compared to 31,487 who don't. That's only 1 out 24 or 4% of scientists who still believe in global warming. Plus, there is a new peer-reviewed study that just came out by the NIPCC called Climate Change Reconsidered which debunks a lot of of myths on global warming.

Ever hear of Google?

So Jon, maybe as a presidential candidate instead of just listening to CNN to form your opinions, maybe you should do a little research for yourself. If you did you would learn that 96% of scientist DON'T believe in Global Warming.

by John LaPlante, Minnesota Free Market Institute

On the start of Labor Day weekend-marked by the announcement that there were zero new jobs created in the country last month-President Obama offers the economy and workers some relief, though perhaps for purely political considerations.

Our friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute comment:

President Barack Obama on Friday announced that he had ordered EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to stop work on new national ozone standards until 2013. This delays until after the 2012 presidential election one of the most economically-destructive new regulations in the Obama Administration's large arsenal of new job-killing regulations.

In an economy like this, be thankful for small favors.

By Paul Chesser, Amercian Tradtion Institute

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dr. Michael Mann, lead author of the discredited "hockey stick" graph that was once hailed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the "smoking gun" of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory, has asked to intervene in American Tradition Institute's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that seeks certain records produced by Mann and others while he was at the University of Virginia, for the purpose of keeping them hidden from the taxpayer.

Specifically over the weekend ATI's Environmental Law Center received service from two Pennsylvania attorneys who seek the court's permission to argue for Dr. Mann to intervene in ATI's case. The attorneys also filed a motion to stay production of documents still withheld by UVA, which are to be provided to ATI's lawyers in roughly two weeks under a protective order that UVA voluntarily agreed to in May. Dr. Mann's lawyers also desire a hearing in mid-September, in an effort to further delay UVA's scheduled production of records under the order.

Dr. Mann's argument, distilled, is that the court must bend the rules to allow him to block implementation of a transparency law, so as to shield his sensibilities from offense once the taxpayer - on whose dime he subsists - sees the methods he employed to advance the global warming theory and related policies. ATI's Environmental Law Center is not sympathetic.

"Dr. Mann's late-hour tactics offer the spectacle of someone who relies on the media's repeats of his untrue claims of having been 'investigated' and 'exonerated' - that is, when he's not sputtering ad hominem and conspiracy theories to change the subject," said Christopher Horner, director of litigation for ATI's Environmental Law Center. "Mann has tried whatever means possible to ensure he remains free of any serious scrutiny, and this just appears to be his last gasp."

Read the rest of the article here.

By Linda Chavez, The Chicago Sun Times

The biggest star in the Obama firmament of green-jobs com­panies has just imploded. Solyndra, a California-based firm that produced solar panels, declared bankruptcy last week, putting more than a thousand additional workers on the unemployment line.

The Solyndra story tells you all you need to know about President Barack Obama's ability to "create" jobs -- green or otherwise.

Solyndra was no ordinary startup. When the company broke ground on its plant, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and California's then-governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, used a golden shovel to dig the first hole. And it wasn't just the shovel that was gold-plated. The company received more than half a billion dollars in federal loan guarantees for the project. But U.S. taxpayers will likely never see a dime repaid now that the company has gone into bankruptcy.

The loan guarantees were controversial from the outset. The chief investor in Solyndra was George Kaiser, a major Obama fund-raiser. The guarantees were part of a $90 billion federal program, but Solyndra was first in line to receive the largess. House Republicans have subpoenaed White House documents and are investigating whether Solyndra received favorable treatment because of its political ties. There seems to be more than a whiff of old-fashioned corruption here, but only a thorough investigation will tell.

One thing is certain: The president and secretary of energy made repeated trips to Solyndra's Silicon Valley plant over the last couple of years, using the facility as a backdrop to deliver clean-energy agitprop. The president's most recent trip was in May 2010, not long after a government audit questioned whether the company could even survive.

Read the rest of the article here.

It is hard to refute their "Scientific" evidence. But, if we did get a tar sands pipeline from Canada we could eliminate importing oil from the middle east. Then we could stop all of those senseless wars over there. We wouldn't have to ship it and truck into the U.S. which will save millions of tons of CO2 emissions. Plus it will create a lot of jobs in the U.S.. Sounds like a Win, Win, Win to me.