The Earth's temperature hasn't increased significantly in about 15 years, which wouldn't be big news except global warming extremists had predicted temperatures would soar during that time because of manmade greenhouse-gas emissions
That forecast would be just another failed hypothesis, except governments around the world used the threatened overheating as an excuse to regulate, tax and subsidize in order to curb greenhouse gases and, of course, to save the Earth.
In 1989 the Miami Herald quoted a U.N. environment official who warned of a "10-year window of opportunity to solve" global warming, because "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000." We know how that turned out.
There are new forecasts today. We're not much more confident about them, but considering how far down the costly road to combating global warming the world has gone, they are worth noting.
What's the deal with Punxsutawney Phil? I swear, he always sees his shadow no matter what, even if its in the temps are in the 40's and the trees are budding. I have a Groundhog living in my shed (here we call them Woodchucks) and he surely did not see his shadow today. I predict an early spring!
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration's decision to reject TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.
"Whatever people bring to us, we're ready to haul," Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett's Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in an interview. If Keystone XL "doesn't happen, we're here to haul."
The State Department denied TransCanada a permit on Jan. 18, saying there was not enough time to study the proposal by Feb. 21, a deadline Congress imposed on President Barack Obama. Calgary-based TransCanada has said it intends to re-apply with a route that avoids an environmentally sensitive region of Nebraska, something the Obama administration encouraged.
The rail option, though costlier, would lessen the environmental impact, such as a loss of wetlands and agricultural productivity, compared to the pipeline, according to the State Department analysis. Greenhouse gas emissions, however, would be worse.
If completed, Keystone XL would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from Alberta's oil sands to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, crossing 1,661 miles (2,673-kilometers) over Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
"Tonight, President Obama once again showed that he does not represent the fundamental change this country needs."
"Tonight, President Obama once again showed that he does not represent the fundamental change this country needs. Instead of offering solutions to the problems our country faces, the President was intent on delivering a campaign speech, further dealing in the typical Washington political gamesmanship that has gotten us exactly nowhere close to improving the lives of the American people.
"In a speech where much of the rhetoric was devoted to job creation, it was strange that President Obama would brag about his job-destroying national health care plan, Obamacare, and the Dodd-Frank bill, which, contrary to the President's claims, guarantees future taxpayer bailouts of large institutions. Unfortunately, President Obama's 'job creation' policies amount to little more than continuing to allow government bureaucrats to pick winners and losers, which is a recipe for continued economic stagnation.
"President Obama claims to want an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. Yet he remains committed to the same old system of debt, deficits, bailouts, and cronyism that created our economic problems. The President speaks of giving us energy independence from unstable nations, yet he refuses to allow the type of development needed to achieve this goal, while at the same time his administration hands out favors to the politically connected - those given to the likes of Solyndra, who fail to produce jobs or energy but succeed in ripping off the taxpayers.
Saw this article in the Startribune I thought it would be a good exercise to highlight all the times WOULD and MAY were used in this article. Plus, I highlighted a few other words as well.
A flying insect that thrives in midwinter MIGHT seem like a creature from a frightening fictional Minnesota.
But Diamesa mendotae, a cold-hardy but delicate insect also known as a midge, is very real and MAY provide a measure of how the state's climate is warming, and what effect that MIGHT have.
Researchers from the University of Minnesota are working to understand more about the relationship between these unusual freeze-resistant insects and the fish that eat them in streams in the southeastern part of the state. The three-year project is primarily about brown trout, a popular target for anglers. "We're THINKING that a changing climate and increasing air temperatures will affect water temperatures, and that COULD reduce [fish] populations," said entomology professor Len Ferrington, principal investigator on the project.
If SOPA passes I'm sure my site will be one of the first to go. I've already had two run-ins with copyright infringement. The first is when I made Two Below Honey, Van Morrison didn't agree with my "Pro Global Warming Views". I changed it to Three Below Honey but it wasn't nearly as good. The second was when I made Hide the Decline, this time it wasn't the song writer that had a problem but Michael Mann said I used his image without permission, so I made Hide the Decline II.
Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in Sackett v. EPA, a case of blatant federal agency overreach and abuse of private property rights. Without any proof or reason, and no chance for appeal, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that a small single home lot was a "protected wetland." The owners, Mike and Chantell Sackett, were ordered to halt construction already underway, to remove all of the work already done, and plant trees and shrubs consistent with a wetlands environment. After making these costly changes, the Sackets then would have to wait several years for the EPA to decide if they would be allowed the use of their own property. Refusal to comply with these outrageous and arbitrary commandments would result in daily fines greater than the value of the property!
Outraged, the Sacketts sought relief through the courts, but court after court determined that they had no standing. The actions of the EPA were not subject to judicial review until a mountain of fees had already been assessed. This is just another example not only of how federal agencies wield enormous power over average citizens, but also how little practical protection our court system provides when such citizens are harmed by those agencies.
A decision on this case is expected this summer. My fervent hope is that the Supreme Court will thwart this rogue agency and stand up for property rights and the right of people to have their day in court when they find themselves unwittingly accosted by the EPA.
My own district in Texas is no stranger to these issues. Again, with no evidence to support their decision, the EPA arbitrarily determined Matagorda County to be an "Ozone Nonattainment Region", meaning the air quality is substandard. In fact, the population in this county has been decreasing and the small amount of emissions reported from Matagorda County has actually declined in recent years. The Texas agency charged with environmental protection disagrees with the EPA. Yet Matagorda County, like the Sacketts, finds itself at the mercy of the EPA. New business and construction will be stymied until the Washington masters are satisfied.
Unless Congress acts, EPA bureaucrats will continue to inflict potentially devastating economic consequences on communities like Matagorda County and people like the Sacketts. Destroying the economy is no way to save the environment. A thriving economy and a fair judicial system that respects property rights and the Constitution provide the best protection of the environment.
Jon Huntsman by far was the most vocal on his belief of Global Warming has dropped out of the race but other GOP hopefuls are still on the fence
"Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science," - Jon Huntsman
Newt Gingrich has flip flopped on this issue, I think he just changes his stance depending on his audience. Here is what he said on Bill O'reilly's show:
"I don't think we know. I think that the evidence is not complete, and I think we're a long way from being able to translate a computer program into actual science." - Newt Gingrich
after he said this on the couch with Nancy Pelosi about passing Cap and Trade:
"we do agree that our country must take action to address Climate Change." - Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney is straddling the fence on Global Warming he believes in it but:
"is not certain to the extent that man is causing the change in the environment."
even though back in June he said this:
"I believe the world's getting warmer. I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that."
Rick Perry has stated that he does not believe in Global Warming even though he worked on Al Gore's campaign in 1988:
"I think we're seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change" - Rick Perry
Rick Santorumis also more skeptical than Newt or Mitt:
"I don't think any scientist in the world would suggest there isn't a variety of factors, and I think the vast majority of scientists would say there's probably a hundred factors that cause the climate to change.... And so why have we decided that this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entire dog?" - Rick Santorum
And finally Ron Paul wants to eliminate the EPA and the DoE and I agree with him.
"The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on global warming." - Ron Paul
NASA sent out two spacecraft yesterday to orbit around the moon to try to answer some age old questions. One question they hope to solve is why is the far side of the moon so different than the near side?
The side of the moon that faces Earth is flat and mostly smooth. The other side is filled with craters from asteroid strikes. One theory is the earth helped protect it from asteroid strikes on the side that faces us. I'm sure that has happened to some extent but the difference is so dramatic I think it has to be something else.
Elmer's Theory About Everything
I think the reason there are more craters on the far side of the moon is because a lot of asteroids hit it at the same time, from the same direction, instead of many single asteroid strikes over millions of years. I think it is evidence of one major catastrophic event.
If the asteroid strikes were spread out over millions of years at random times from different directions you'd would get a completely different crater pattern. The moon would always be in a different position depending on the time of the year and time of day.
This is probably the same catastrophic event that caused the great flood approximately 4,400 years ago. The theory goes that a large comet made of ice passed very close to the earth and chunks of the tail hit the moon and the earth and probably Mars and Mercury (which is why there are traces of water on those planets). Instead of the us protecting the moon it looks like the moon may have protected us.
But it still changed the earth dramatically, it caused the earth to tilt on axis by 22 degrees it may have lengthened our solar year from 260 days to 365, either by speeding up our rotation or lengthening our orbit or both. It also caused the Great Flood and instantly created the North and South Poles. This would explain herds of Woolly Mammoths with tropical vegetation still in their mouths found frozen in the ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic. It didn't happen gradually it happened in one giant cataclysmic event and we have been slowly thawing out ever since.
By Elmer Beauregard
UPDATE: I finally found some more stuff on his website, it's kind of hidden. He has a subdomain called. support.ricksantorum.com I looked on his issues page but I can't find anything about global warming or energy policy. He must not think its an issue.
After Rick Santorum's surprise second place finish last night and Michele Bachmann's dropping out this morning, I figured I better check this guy out, I don't know much about him.
So I went to his official website www.RickSantorum.com but all I can see is just a donate page.
I was hoping to go and see for instance what his official stance on Global Warming and Energy Policy was but everything I click just goes back his donate page. Am I missing something?
Maybe the Iowa GOP's website is Santorum's official site, if you look at the header its says to "ALSO VISIT - www.RickSantorum.com ~ Conservative Presidential Candidate" which of course just leads you to his donate page.
Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com
Concerns about subversion grow after Republican strategist says GOP establishment will not allow Ron Paul to win
Tonight's final vote tally for the Iowa caucuses will take place at a secret undisclosed location, an announcement that has stoked fears of vote fraud amongst Ron Paul supporters, concerns that were heightened following a Republican insider's claim that the GOP establishment will not allow Paul to win.
The final Iowa vote count normally takes place at state party headquarters in Des Moines, but following dubious "security concerns" about Occupy protesters disrupting the tabulation process, the Republican Party of Iowa announced that it would be moving the final vote count to a secret undisclosed location.
The move occurred despite Occupy protest leaders confirming there were no plans to disrupt the caucuses themselves.
"Votes in each of the 1,774 precincts will still be counted on location, and observers from the campaigns will be able to watch that process. That precinct information will then be conveyed to the state party's tabulation center," reports CNN.
WatchtheVote2012.com warns that not only Paul, but also Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are "in grave danger of being cheated on Iowa caucus night 2012 by the Iowa State GOP and the 5 big TV networks."
Read rest of the article here.
Republican strategist Dee Dee Benkie revealed during a radio show appearance last night that the GOP establishment has resolved to prevent Ron Paul from winning tonight's Iowa primary by offering sweetheart deals to move large voting blocks to vote for Romney or Santorum.
The host of the show refers to state GOP insiders showing "great concern" that Ron Paul is performing well in Iowa because they fear a Paul win would undermine Iowa's position as being the first Republican primary. He implies that influential members of the Republican establishment within the state are offering sweetheart deals to prominent voting blocks in key swing districts in order to "sway" the result and ensure Ron Paul doesn't win.
Despite the fact that this is brazenly unethical and, if bribery was involved, without doubt illegal, the host dismisses such conduct as "just politics".
"Is it possible that the party apparatus here could be silently asking those District Chairmen to start swaying some important caucus members over to the anti-Paul side which may end up being Santorum...do you see a scenario like that happening," he asked Benkie.
"I've talked to the party officials, I know they're concerned about it," said Benkie, adding, "Ron Paul doesn't do us any good in Iowa, doesn't do the country any good, will never get there, so let's figure out what we need to do."
Minnesota is experiencing a very nice warm winter this year, in fact we just had a brown Christmas. Nobody is blaming it on Global Warming that I have seen but I'm sure they will soon. It is so warm up here that Ice houses are sinking through the ice.
Before people start doing the Chicken Little thing and cry "The Globe Is Warming!" I would like to remind everyone that we have had this kind of winter before, and it seems to happen every eleven years or so.
I remember the non-winters of '88 and '99, both of those years people were playing golf in January in Minnesota. Now in 2011 twelve years after the last one we are having a very mild winter, the thing is I was expecting it.
There seems to be a correlation between these mild winters and the solar cycle or sunspot cycle. If you look at this chart you will see the the solar activity goes up and down like a yo-yo on an eleven year cycle. I was looking for a warm winter in 2010 and it didn't happen but sure enough one year later we get a little break from the severe winters we've had in the last few years. So hope to see you on the golf course real soon.
Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act. No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property. Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say "I'm not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry." However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.
The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.
By Craig Rucker, wattsupwiththat.com
EPA mercury rules for electricity generating units are based on false science and economics
The Environmental Protection Agency claims its "final proposed" Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules will eliminate toxic pollution from electrical generating units, bring up to $140 billion in annual health benefits, and prevent thousands of premature deaths yearly - all for "only" $11 billion a year in compliance costs.
This may be true in the virtual reality of EPA computer models, linear extrapolations, cherry-picked health studies and statistics, government press releases and agency-generated public comments. However, in the real world inhabited by families, employers and other energy users, the new rules will bring few benefits, but will impose extensive costs that the agency chose to minimize or ignore in its analysis.
Emissions of mercury and other air toxics from power plants have been declining steadily for decades, as older generating units have been replaced with more efficient, less polluting systems or retrofitted with better pollution control technologies. While a few older plants still violate EPA's draconian proposed rules - the new rules are not based on credible scientific and epidemiological studies.
To those of you who have been eager to hear the latest news concerning the potential release of genetically modified mosquitoes - here it is.
It turns out that the genetically modified mosquitoes could be released into the U.S. environment as early as January of 2012.
A private firm plans to initiate the release of the GE mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. Florida will be the first beta testing grounds to determine whether or not the mosquitoes lead to detrimental environmental and genetic impact. Residents in this area will also be subjected -- without choice -- to these genetically manipulated insects, unless the private firm decides to seek permission.
Genetically Modified Mosquitoes -- An Unknown Dangerous Experiment
The first mosquito release took place in the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean in 2009. On Sunday, October 27, the release was discussed in a scientific paper by the journal of Nature Biotechnology with the report concluding the release's success.
A second trial occurred in 2010, where 6,000 mosquitoes were released in Malaysia for further experiments. The mosquitoes are genetically modified with a gene designed to kill them unless given an antibiotic known as tetracycline. Offspring of the GM mosquitoes will receive this same lethal gene which will kill the offspring before it can ever reach adulthood. As more genetically modified mosquitoes mate with wild mosquitoes, the idea is that more and more offspring will be produced with the lethal gene, thereby reducing the mosquito population.
U.S. Justice Department request puts chill on skeptical bloggers
In recent days I've been receiving calls and emails asking what the U.S. Justice Department wants with me. In fact, there has been a misunderstanding. I write a blog about climate-change dogma that has a similar Web address to a blogger in the United States. It is that person -- who publishes under the pen name Jeff Id at NOconsensus.wordpress.com -- who is being targeted.
Earlier this month, a trial attorney employed by the Justice Department's criminal division sent a formal request to WordPress (the blogging software company) to freeze for 90 days "all stored communications, records, and other evidence in your possession" regarding three climate-skeptic blogs. ClimateAudit.org -- written by Canadian Steve McIntyre and hosted on WordPress' U.S.-based servers -- was one of that trio. So was Tallbloke's Talkshop, written by a U.K. resident and published at tallbloke.wordpress.com.
The Justice Department is interested in WordPress records spanning three days -- Nov. 21 to 23 inclusive. At 4:09 a.m. on Nov. 22, someone calling themselves FOIA made a comment on McIntyre's blog. It consisted solely of a link to a zip file posted online at a Russian Web address. The zip file contained 5,000 emails written by some of the most prominent names in climate science.
Dubbed Climategate 2, these documents are still being examined and sifted. But emails have already come to light in which scientists employed by publicly funded universities in the U.K. and elsewhere discuss the deliberate deletion and removal of records from university computers. (In the U.K., altering or deleting documents in an attempt to circumvent freedom of information legislation is a criminal offense.)
In these emails individuals such as the University of Pennsylvania's Michael Mann also talk about "the cause" they feel they are advancing. Moreover, these exchanges make it abundantly clear that the experts who've been conducting climate research (and writing reports about that research for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have privately expressed doubts about the robustness of many of their findings.
One of the themes to come out of Climategate 2.0 is the phrase "The Cause" that Michael Mann mentions in a few of his emails. You probably already saw this fake movie trailer I made. But what is "The Cause"? I'm sure if you asked Michael Mann he would say it is to educate people about the dangers of Global Warming and to institute legislation like Cap & Trade to try and stop global warming in their minds they are "Saving The Planet". Also part of their cause is to win the PR battle and to silence the skeptics, because you can only pass new laws if a large majority believe in it. This is basically what he says int this TEDx speech.
To be fair we as skeptics also have a cause, our cause is to expose the warmists like Michael Mann and to stop their agenda. So having a "Cause" per se is not a bad thing, both skeptics and warmists are fighting for their perspective causes on the battlefield of public opinion. So why is this phrase so insidious? Well maybe the cause to what Michael refers is more than just a scientific theory about the weather.
In Michael's TEDx speech he brings up the fact that the first Climategate came out just before the Copenhagen meeting and it helped to derail a "most important opportunity" for an international agreement. He states that maybe it was just a coincidence, but I don't think it was. Here are the event leading up to the Copenhagen Meeting in my mind, and I do think it would make a great movie.
Want to stop Global Warming? I've got some swamp land I can sell you.
Heard this on NPR this morning, now swamps are causing global warming. The Greens normally love wetlands, but now they want to flood them and grow weeds to stop global warming and to make millions of dollars while saving the planet. Maybe the state of Louisiana should sell carbon offsets to California, they're whole state is basically a big flooded swamp.
Here's an idea, how about cut down all those giant redwoods in California turn them into lumber. This is the best way to capture carbon for a very long time, then you would plant new redwoods in their place to keep sucking up more of that nasty CO2. Not only would you make a ton of dough selling Carbon Credits you could also make money by actually SELLING THE LUMBER.
I'm trying to be sarcastic, but this is actually what they are doing. I guess if your core beliefs are based on a lie, bizarre behavior should be expected.
Climate experts are exploring the concept of growing dense fields of weeds to help soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Just over a year from now, California will begin enforcing a set of laws that limit emissions of greenhouse gases from factories, power plants and, eventually, from vehicles.
So if you run a power plant in California, you might reduce your footprint by buying new, cleaner equipment. But that can be expensive.
Instead, you could help pay to protect a growing forest, because it sucks carbon dioxide out of the air. Or you could pay a farmer to capture methane from a pond of pig waste.
One interesting phenomenon of the 2012 race has been the disappearance of global warming as a campaign issue. Not surprising among the Republicans, but not even President Obama is talking about it.
When President Obama was running during more flush economic times, he promised to raise everyone's power bill in order to save the planet. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board on January 17, 2008, President Obama stated that, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Any such utterance today would be political suicide.
Even this year's worldwide confab of climate change zealots and anti-growth fanatics in Durban, South Africa is very low key. Representing the U.S. at the conference is Todd Stern, the State Department Special Envoy for Climate Change (Todd Stern is an able public servant -- they should give him a job where his talents could be put to good use), and Jonathan Pershing, the Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change. Expect a dry written statement from the Obama administration, with empty phrases like "progress made" or "a deepened understanding among nations is developing."
Since the last election, the science surrounding global climate change has been tainted by scandal, while economic realities have become all too clear. We need an environmental policy that is no longer connected to global weather maintenance. Pursuing the global remedies that the left wants includes giving money to other countries and raising American families' power bills. We can't transfer green technology money to Solyndra, much less to foreign countries.
Read the rest of the article here.
Here's one good way to consider the vote in 2012: It's about whether to re-elect President Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which these days runs most the U.S. economy.
The EPA heaved its weight against another industry this month, issuing a regulation to sharply increase fuel economy. Under this new rule, America's fleet of passenger cars and light trucks will have to meet an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, a doubling of today's average of about 27 mpg. By the EPA's estimate the rule will cost $157 billion, meaning the real number is vastly greater.
The fuel-economy rule is classic Obama EPA. Until this Administration, fuel standards were the remit of Congress, via its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. In 2007, the legislative branch raised those standards with a bill requiring the U.S. fleet to hit 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40% increase. The industry is struggling to keep pace with those steep requirements.
President Jackson is now casting aside 35 years of Congressional prerogative. Because the Obama EPA has declared carbon dioxide a "pollutant," and because cars emit CO2, Ms. Jackson is citing the Clean Air Act in her bid to commandeer Detroit. While the EPA officially worked with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Nhtsa, the agency previously in charge of efficiency standards), it's clear the EPA is calling the shots.
At least when Nhtsa was overseeing efficiency, it was charged by Congress with taking into account vehicle safety and a rule's effect on the economy and consumer demand. The EPA can't be bothered with such detail.
Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first "climategate" leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.
The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called "the gold standard" of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The new release of emails was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original climategate leak and with the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa. And it has already stirred strong emotions. To Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), for example, the leaker or leakers responsible are attempting to "sabotage the international climate talks" and should be identified and brought "to justice."
One might sympathize with Mr. Markey's outrage if, say, the emails were maliciously rewritten or invented. But at least one scientist involved--Mr. Mann--has confirmed that the emails are genuine, as were the first batch released two years ago. So any malfeasance revealed therein ought to be blamed on the scientists who wrote them, rather than on the whistleblower who exposed them.
The free market - not government - is the solution to America's energy needs.
Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet.
Washington's bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have distorted the market and resulted in government bureaucrats picking winners and losers.
In fact, much of the "pain at the pump" Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production - like oil, coal, and natural gas - in hopes of making energy sources they favor more "economical."
Sadly, even with $4.00 a gallon gasoline, many are attempting to make our energy crisis even worse by working to impose job-destroying carbon taxes, or a "Cap and Tax" system.
As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs.
A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT
As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:
* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.
* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.
* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.
* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create - not to Washington.
* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.
It's time for a President that recognizes the free market's power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.
In an interview this week with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Gingrich said the ad "is probably the dumbest thing I've done in recent years."
"I was trying to communicate that conservatives care about the environment," he said. "All I did was make conservatives mad, and liberals didn't particularly like me. It was a mistake, and I wouldn't go back and do it again."
In the same interview Gingrich said he was "deeply opposed" to cap-and-trade, a regulatory system that puts a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions and then allows emitters like utility and manufacturing companies to trade pollution permits.
In a 2007 on PBS's "Frontline," Gingrich said the cap-and-trade program was something he "would strongly support."
"I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good," he said according to the show's transcript.
Two years later, Gingrich told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that a cap-and-trade bill was a "huge mistake" that amounted to a "massive energy tax."
Read the entire article here.
