Nature


For some time now it has appeared that desperation and exasperation has crept into the zeitgeist psyche of the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)-support community. With each passing day, and with each strong rebuttal of the underpinnings of the AGW theory, the new theories or proofs of theories become more and more and more specious, speculative and tentative.

A prime example of this state of matters, what I like to personally call shoudda, woudda, coudda, is encapsulated in this recent AP story regarding a new, ominous theory that supports AGW and portends dire consequences for inaction and (of course) suggests that we cease our use of CO2-producing energy before it’s too late:

Warming ocean could melt ice faster than thought

I hate to even link to alleged news articles like this, because it might add to the appearance of credibility for the pure claptrap they report. But the best disinfectant for such things is sunlight, and I strongly feel it is a necessary responsibility to rebut these things as they arise.

I urge you to read and reread the article several times (it is short). If you will, count the number of times that a declarative (will, is, won’t, can, etc.) rather than a speculative (might, could, should, etc.) statement is made in describing the new “oceans-will-melt-faster” theory. I get eleven declaratives and eight speculatives in a cursory reading. However, if one removes the extraneous fluff, like how some action will cause some result…not associated with the theory, then the count becomes eight speculatives to four declaratives.

Through the use of clever journalistic techniques, one reads — at face value — a mainstream news story that seems like it solidly supports the underlying AGW theory, without a doubt. But if you take the time to strip away the extraneous information it contains, not related to the nub of the story, then the theory that the story purports to be rock-solid  proof, in this case of AGW, becomes quite speculative and specious.

It goes without saying that in the case if AGW, with all the power to be had and money to be made by those who would force us to accept it, that for the average man or woman two words must come to the fore whenever they read or hear such a story…

Caveat Emptor!

Morons, psychopaths and mental defectives…If you guessed I was talking about Obama supporters, then ding, ding, ding…you’re correct! I cannot imagine a group of more brain dead sheeple than those who presently give our rambling, bumbling POTUS high marks for performance. Rasmussen has him at 50% favorability in today’s poll. With ever-increasing unemployment numbers, inflation on the move upward, increasing oil/gasoline prices and the price of food at 10 year highs I would imagine that any other president would suffer some unfavorability. But his trusty minions in the lamestream media have kept Mr. Obama afloat in the churning seas of his own making. I’m hoping that Israel supporters of all religions will start to drag his favorability down to where it belongs (probably in the high 30′s) after they’ve had a chance to cogitate on his truly breathtaking treachery involving Mideast “peace” and his “return to 1967 borders” comment.

“Never can say goodbye.” Folks are clutching on to the notion of “free” healthcare in spite of the facts presented to them that Medicare will collapse in 2030 (according to the actuary of the CBO.  We know this because a majority of Americans polled are not in favor of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to overhaul this bank-breaking behemoth federal program. But regardless of their reluctance to embrace Ryan’s proposed changes, or their wholesale buying of the negative hyperbole and outright lies being put forth by the Democrats against both Mr. Ryan and his proposal, something will need to be done to rein in the astronomical costs of this failing program. What will those who now clutch at this program do when it eventually fails? Leave it to their children or grandchildren to clean up the mess? Or worse, allow the country to default on its “promises” to Medicare recipients? It’s tough medicine to swallow, but something must be done. The Dems are demagoging this issue and making political hay with Ryan’s proposal and the support of it by many in the GOP. Granny gets rolled off the cliff…the GOP are uncaring and hard-hearted. Phooey!! But such are the conundrums that we face when we stray from the Constitution and roll out social programs that were never intended by the Framers. There are really only two choices…admit to ourselves that changes must be made, and grin and bear those changes, or…enable craven politicians to use Medicare as a political third-rail issue and see it eventually fail and produce dire financial consequences for our nation.

Barack Obama, The Tin (Ear) Man. There has probably never been another American president that has a tinnier ear for pomp, circumstance and protocol when it comes to interacting with other world leaders and notables than our current executive. He has an embarrassing track record of bowing to despots and dictators, speaking at inappropriate times, giving inappropriate or insulting gifts and “speechifying” in a manner that infuriates Americans, friends and allies alike. This latest gaffe, speaking over God Save The Queen, wasn’t covered much by the lamestream, but it was a world-class gaffe for a supposed first-string world leader. It was just another embarrassing and infuriating example of this president’s bull-in-the-china-shop approach to diplomacy and international relations. At this point in his term, I’m convinced that our friends and allies see the Obama’s as ebony hillbillies who are  not trainable in the diplomatic arts, and individuals who perhaps mean well, but just have a knack for getting things wrong.

Not My Cuppa Tea! The NY-26 congressional race was an interesting political battle. In a race distinguished by the lackluster field of candidates of all parties… Democrat Kathy Hochul, the eventual winner, Republican Jane Corwin and “Tea party” candidate Jack Davis. Davis was actually a Democrat using the the Tea party moniker to compete in the general election. Democrat pundits are using this sole, obscure victory to indicate the public’s displeasure with Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal. But this race should give GOP candidates nationwide pause and chasten them to Democrat political treachery and chicanery. See, the Dems engaged in combination “divide and conquer” and “addition by subtraction” scheme to win this election. The addition of the ersatz Tea Party candidate Davis certainly siphoned prospective votes from Corwin. And since Hochul didn’t win by a plurality of the vote, or by a margin that was greater than the vote tally of Davis, then she really didn’t have a mandate…nor was there a clear mandate associated with her election. mark my words, candidates in the mold of Davis are going to crop-up nationwide in the 2012 election. GOP candidates are going to have to make a bigger deal of the duplicitous, phoney Tea party candidates as they appear…and educate their electorate as best as possible. Because the Democrats don’t care how they win — corpses, convicts or livestock voting, or by tricking serious conservative voters that a liberal Democrat candidate running is a serious Tea Party candidate. Let the games begin.

Didn’t You Know bin Laden is DEAD??? I think we’re seeing the framework of Barack Obama’s re-election plans come together, and it is a simple plan indeed. He is going to be the slayer of Osama. The defender of the Republic. I can just see the questions at the presidential debates:

  • Moderator: Mr. President, how do you explain the 9% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits to the average American voter?
  • Obama: Well, let me say this, I GOT OSAMA BIN LADEN!!! Ya know.
  • Moderator: Yes, Mr. President…grated. But what about the stifling regulations that are coming from the Obama administration?”
  • Obama: Well, I did KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN!!! That is a change we can believe in!
  • and so on…

The snuffing of Osama is going to wear thin real fast, I’m sure. But that won’t stop Obama from taking his share of victory laps, trying to extract maximum political advantage from his “courageous” decision. Now, indeed the president did eradicate this mad dog terrorist leader. But, contrary to the ecstasy being enjoyed by the unfortunate Joe Biden, snubbing Osama was the president’s job. He was supposed to get bin Laden if he could, dead or alive. And Biden’s eddic hyperbole aside, a courageous decision by a president is exemplified by Harry Truman’s truly mind-numbing decision to nuke two Japanese cities to aid in ending WWII. Truman’s decision is a model of courage and leadership. In comparison, what Obama did in regards to eliminating Osama was like taking out the White House trash.

Where’s The Outrage?? Well, the hypocrisy of the Democrats has been revealed in full glory with the renewal of the Patriot Act (PA.) Nary a sniff or grunt has been heard from the list of the usual congressional suspects who had no compunction in excoriating George W. Bush for his embrace of the PA after 9/11. But since Obama is the beneficiary of the renewal, then all is right in America…even though the renewed provisions, including overseas wiretaps, were seen as unconstitutional and intrusive when President Bush was POTUS. My question is: Where’s the outrage?? Cue the crickets.

Stating the Obvious. A big news tidbit over the past few days has been the fact that the Hispanic population in the US is now over 50 million. Well, duh! With an open southern border to Mexico, I’m surprised that this number isn’t bigger! The soft-skulls in the lamestream seem somehow enthralled with this population growth in the Hispanic community…seeing it as somehow a win for diversity. It would be if we had a secure border with orderly immigration. But embracing this unchecked population growth, knowing full well that a vast majority of it is due to illegal immigration is self-destructive to our nation and an odd display of encouragement by the supporters of this growth.

God Bless Joplin, MO. The people of Joplin had to endure an unspeakable tragedy. One minute they were experiencing a warm, mid-spring evening and the next, almost in the wink of an eye, their community was almost completely obliterated. It is heartening and encouraging to see neighbor-helping-neighbor in Joplin. These folks, who experienced utter devastation of their material possessions, didn’t wait for FEMA trucks or the federal government to come to their rescue. There were no “Rescue Me” signs and people just doing nothing. Although they lost EVERYTHING, most of the folks spent countless hours searching for family and neighbors, and helping to collect and pass out supplies to the other dazzled survivors. Post-Katrina New Orleans and post-tornado Joplin provide a perfect contrast between the two societies that we live among in the United States. New Orleans had too many folks dependent upon the largess of the federal government, unwilling to take charge and save themselves. Joplin, however, had folks who couldn’t care less if FEMA trucks and government assistance never came — because they have each-other. Gob bless those who were taken in this random act of nature’s fury…and God grant the survivors the grace and strength to endure and survive this disaster.

[BTW -- I'm baaaaaaack! And I will strive to have more regular postings from here on in!! enjoy!]

German Chancellor Angel Merkel has started down a road to close ALL nuclear power plants presently operating in Germany based on the recent tsunami-based crisis in Japan. Merkel has begun the process to close the oldest plants as soon as possible.

This decision is a prime example of the sad fact that politicians can take actions out of fear and/or ignorance that have wide ranging unintended national and economic consequences. Germany’s present nuclear power generation capacity is 20,339 megawatts, or 26.1% of the total national capacity. What will happen to Germany when this 26% capacity disappears from their power grid? What form of energy will be utilized by Germany to take up the slack left by the absence of nuclear power? Does Merkel think that magical windmills and space-hogging solar facilities will replace the significant power capacity as provided today by nuclear energy? These are all questions with no substantive answers for the German people.

All the panic and rash political decisions as a result of the Fukushima nuclear plant issues after the tsunami are simply Theater of the Absurd…and Theater of Political Desperation. The best thing we can do as the collective human race, regardless of national status, is learn from the Fukushima crisis. We need to learn what are the costs to human safety, what are the costs of decontamination and, finally, what are the costs to the nation from the loss of this power generating plant — with no viable backup for many years? The answers to these questions can then be used to then implement government regulations affecting new nuclear power plant construction that will prevent another Fukushima crisis. This would be a very prudent use of government energies, actions and plans.

Humans learn from our mistakes. If we fail to learn lessons from what happened at Fukushima, then we have truly let a crisis go to waste. Irrational actions by the likes of Angela Merkel in Germany might appeal to greenies and Luddites, but they cheat average German citizens from a safe, viable, clean and effective source of power generation for a long, long time. There can be no (NO) long-term national energy policy that may exist without the inclusion of nuclear power. For any leader or any government to claim otherwise is a lie and a sham.

Angel Merkel’s actions have shown that decisions for politically-correct motivations may appear at face value to be in the best interests of a nation or a people. But upon closer inspection, Ms. Merkel has ultimately returned Germany to a reliance on technologies, wind and solar, that are firmly rooted in the 15th century and that cannot provide sufficient power for Germany to remain a play on the worked economic stage. Because of a single crisis, surrounded by extreme fear-mongering by the international media, she is turning her back on an energy source that will provide all humans with cheap, safe and effective energy for centuries to come.

If that was Ms. Merkel’s intention, then MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. If it wasn’t…then don’t bet on Germany any time soon. They will be going nowhere.

Seems like apt company for our modern day Nero. The one thing you’ll never see is our august presidente in a group photo with Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, et. al.

I read this brief, but to-the-point, essay on the whole Climategate matter by Australian scientist and businessman Ian Pilmer, who is also an outspoken critic of global warming and climate change science. It appeared on the Pajamas Media web site.

Unfortunately, it is a view that I doubt will ever see the light of day in the US mainstream media:

Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud (PJM Exclusive)

I cannot understand why major US media outlets (besides FOX News) don’t see this revelation as a major scientific scandal and a major news story. Sadly, they are content in perpetuating a lie that fits their ideological world-view. And they are willing to compromise their “integrity” (if the US MSM can be attributed to having any integrity left after the sloppy political media coverage of the past year and a half) to prop up their sagging ideological totems.

My advice to the average citizen…turn off their channels and eschew buying their newspapers and magazines. If they’re going to lie to us and support politicians who would do us all damage with their decisions based on faulty conclusions, then we need to punish them in the manner they most assuredly deserve!

These bastards understand money, and so we must remove the nutrients (think of it as withholding water and oxygen from a stubborn weed!) that help them to flourish even thought they stubbornly seem to be comfortable with either altering or simply ignoring the truth and reality.

If they are comfortable in abandoning their constitutional advocacy of the people, then we must take up the cause ourselves and get the word out in spite of their recalcitrance.

Pig-headed world leaders are set to make our existence much harder and much different with their upcoming agreements and treaties in Copenhagen — all of which is based on data that has been rigged — gleefully mutated by craven, venal pseudo-scientists in the UK and the USA.

Now is not the time to bury our heads in the sand and retreat from this issue because we don’t have any expertise skin in the game. We all have common sense and can make decisions based on available data (if that data is correct and honest) and we all have a vested interest in the remedies that are planned and implemented.

So, PLEASE, use you wallets and voices to make sure that the media, and more importantly, your elected representatives hear and understand your concerns regarding this scandal. And make them understand that given the recent scandal, and its potential implications, that making climatological deals in Copenhagen in two weeks is simply the wrong thing to do.

Carbon Footprint

In the statement released today that President Obama will be traveling to Copenhagen to negotiate America’s portion of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, he is obviously and most probably intentionally ignoring the obvious 900 pound gorilla in the room. And that 900 pound is the increasing-in-momentum unraveling of the climate change/global warming data, and the discrediting of the scientific underpinnings of global warming theory.

In light of the recent and developing news that much of the climate change data has been manipulated and fraudulent, our Commander-In-Chief still plans to attend the Copenhagen summit to make what would seem to be idiotic concessions to solve non-existent issues — resulting in actions and restrictions that will negatively affect the well-being of all Americans. And for what? Well, nothing it seems.

I would think that rather than increasing his already inter-galactic-sized carbon footprint by going to Copenhagen he would, rather, angrily demand an investigation into what now appears to be the biggest political-scientific conspiracy and scandal in the history of the world. A real leader would want to get to the bottom of this and pronto!!

However, Obama’s intended actions don’t seem like sound leadership to me. They seem like the pursuit of a conclusion to a preconceived notion regarding the perceived harm being done by anthropogenic global warming…a notion that will not be changed even if the theory is completely and utterly debunked.

It makes me think that the whole to-do surrounding global warming/climate change was never ever about reducing temperatures or saving polar bears…it was ALWAYS about increasing control on the average citizen by an ever-enlarging central government. It was and is about adding to the ever-increasing list of do’s and don’ts that our government-masters dream up for us unwitting citizens for our own good.

If it were otherwise, and if all the proposed and looming legislation and treaties were in our best interests, then we should expect Obama to act accordingly and put the brakes on any negotiations until the latest scandal is settled.

To do anything else ignores the obvious…

It seems that the “transparent” Obama administration is having a little problem with opacity these days. Recently it was revealed that a report critical and skeptical of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was suppressed at the EPA. The reason it was suppressed was, in the words of EPA administrator Al McGartland to the author of the report Dr. Alan Carlin, that “the administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

Dr. Carlin, it seems, had the audacity to author a report on some of the more troubling issues with the “science” of AGW. His 98-page report brings up a number of salient points that skeptical climate scientists and climatologists, as well as lay people, raise as sticking points with the AGW theory. A complete text of Dr. Carlin’s report is found HERE. It’s a rather large PDF file, so be patient when downloading it. In an accommodation to convenience, I stripped out the executive summary, and it is found HERE.

Now, AGW idolaters and adherents are quick to point out that Dr. Carlin is not a “climate scientist” but rather an economist. How dare he have an opinion on global warming, let alone put down any of his concerns on paper? He should stick to economic issues like balancing his checkbook and analyzing the economic implications of EPA guidelines. But when it comes to trodding on the rarefied turf of climate science, he should back off and shut up.

But you be the judge of his work. Dr. Carlin, who by the way has a BS in Physics from Caltech and a PhD in Economics from MIT, brings up some very interesting issues in his report. Rather than suppress this document, I would expect that it would be used as a useful tool to test the AGW hypothesis. And this informed, contrary opinion should be valuable to a supposed impartial organization like the EPA.

With the suppression of Dr. Carlin’s report, the Obama administration and the EPA have demonstrated a single mindedness on the issue of AGW. This theory has now risen to the level of “fact.” So sayeth the modern Pharaoh Obama.

So it is written, so it shall be done!

But you have to ask yourself what scientific theory, past or present, is so bulletproof that given the test of time, that faults aren’t found with it or it is repudiated altogether. If only we could ask Albert Einstein…whose theory of special relativity needed some “adjustments” to make it agree with empirical observations.

Albert Einstein was a man who was able to admit his mistakes, and acknowledge problems with his theories. he embraced science for the advancement of scientific ideas, and to further the intellectual pursuits of humanity as a whole. The AGW “scientists” seem to revel in the glow of the spotlights and thrive on the adulation of a ga-ga mainstream media. If these “scientists” had one molecule of Albert Einstein in them they would be hard at work vigorously trying to disprove their theory, and attempting to punch holes in their findings. Alas, that’s not happening now, and not likely to happen in the future. In a sense, they may have backed themselves into a corner, reputation-wise. The only thing to do now is retrench and fight. And disparage their critics in a savage and un-science-like manner.

Where are the modern-day Albert Einstein’s when you really need them?

I was thinking about the high drama and hysteria put forth upon the general public by the global warmers. Due to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by human-based activities and the presumed accompanying global temperature increase, mankind has been determined to be a global climate villain. The reduction or elimination of so-called anthropogenic global warming has become a rallying cry for the global warming set. In fact, some, like former Vice President Al Gore, have made a substantial living from their global warming alarmism.

I’ve always been skeptical regarding man’s supposed influence on the climate. I find a troubling penchant for forcing results to fit the theory by climate scientists and researchers. As someone with a scientific and engineering background, I find it dismaying that so many supposed scientists rely on untrustworthy or ill-understood computer models. I also find troubling and possibly inaccurate the methods and techniques that are employed to measure historical levels of atmospheric CO2. Finally, I find it antithetical to science and scientific method that so many climatologists and scientists have climbed aboard the bandwagon and fastened their seat belts and have accepted as dogma the whole climate change/global warming theory. In fact, many of these trained-to-be-skeptical scientists have embraced this theory lock, stock and barrel. Scientists who should be skeptical and constantly testing the theory, trying to poke holes in it for science’s sake.

So, as a result of the attendant 24/7 media blitz set upon us by concerned yet ignorant media types, we’ve got scientific and now political communities galvanized in their opinions and who want to “fix” this alleged problem. And the way they want to fix the problem is to reduce human contributions of CO2 from our industrial activities. So now we have a worldwide push for alternative and renewable energy, for clean emissions and for draconian government-mandated cap-and-trade emissions regulations. All these, we are told, will reduce atmospheric CO2 below the danger level and ultimately save the Earth and its inhabitants.

But my question is: “Why are we going to focus just on the human contribution to atmospheric CO2?” It’s not like humans and their activities are the only sources of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, as it happens, is a combustion and respiration byproduct from almost all life-based activities on our planet. The breathing of living creatures, volcanic activity, fires, chemical reactions, and normal organic decomposition all contribute CO2 into our environment and eventually into the atmosphere. So why the pre-occupation with just the CO2 that comes from human sources? Why are anthropogenic CO2 emissions considered hazardous by the EPA?

We live with quite a few fellow humans who believe to their DNA that we are somehow unnatural and that everything we do is unnatural and conspires to destroy the pristine Earth. Our presence on the Earth is the largest threat to the health and welfare of the Earth, or so the über enviro-Nazis would have us believe.

However others, myself included, strongly disagree!

We are just as natural and just as justified in our place in the Earth’s ecosystem as the lowliest single-celled creature or the primates almost as evolved as our race. We are natural and wholesome creatures worthy of our existence and our activities, whatever they may be.

If this is so, then why the single-minded focus on reducing or eliminating the CO2 emissions from human activities? Why must we be forced to make a Hobson’s choice between our present standard of living and living in a carbon-reduced world that might have all the trappings of the Paleozoic era?

The answer is that we don’t! We don’t if we were to stop the preoccupation with anthropogenic C02 emissions and instead focus on reducing those from “other” sources. How come we haven’t thought about this already as a society? How come we humans must be expected to transform our lifestyles to accommodate the scientific tipping of windmills by certain climate scientists and politicians with suspect motivations? Why must our government, and those in the rest of the world, be in the business of mandating these emissions and modifying free-will behaviors?

Truth be told, none of those measures have to exist. I believe we are concentrating on anthropogenic and only anthropogenic because our government(s) know that they can push around their citizens to get the behaviors and the results that they desire. They are in effect taking the easy way out — even though the “easy way” will exact a high toll on all us humans on our Earth. This concept of environmental reconciliation certainly takes our responsibility for the stewardship of our planet to a new and beyond-absurd level.

If the concept of global warming/climate change was demonstrated to beyond a reasonable doubt by a panel of scientists who are not intimately connected with the research already done and the “evidence” already collected, I could buy into reducing CO2 emissions. But I would demand that before we take the “blame thyself” philosophy regarding climate change that we explore reducing any and all other sources of CO2 emissions on Earth. If we believe that historical CO2 atmospheric concentrations hovered at the 280ppm level before human industrial activities, and that today the concentration level hovers at the 375ppm level, then were talking about a 55ppm difference, or a 20% increase in the level of this gas.

Rather than penalizing every human on Earth to reduce this 55ppm, we should try by all means possible to reduce the emissions elsewhere. This is a topic of conversation that has never been fully considered or discussed. We do not know in fact that any reduction of “other” CO2 emissions is possible, feasible or cheaper to accomplish than restricting the use of fossil fuels and restricting the activities of humans. Until this discussion takes place, I propose that we have not done our homework regarding this matter. Certainly the tailpipe of my car or the chimney on my roof aren’t the only guilty parties in this drama. But because they are man-made sources of CO2 emissions, they are expected to bear the brunt of the proposed remediation.

This is wrongheaded problem solving on so many levels because it immediately discounts and subordinates the needs and desires of “unnatural” humans in favor of those of the remainder of the “natural” world. And it is a philosophy and policy that I cannot support as both a global warming skeptic and as a human being.

According to the DNC party line spouted by every Democrat holding political office, we simply can’t drill our way out of the current energy crisis. You know the crisis I’m talking about — the one where you’re paying ~$4 per gallon for gasoline. No, contrary to the logic and reality that gets petroleum here in the first place (by drilling), the Democrats was to solve this problem using “other methods.”

And filling in some missing detail and adding some textural elements to this philosophy is none other than Mr. Democratic Presumptive Nominee, Barak Obama. Yup, Obama weighed in on the plan that will bring us all energy deliverance: “There’s things that you can do individually though to save energy. Making sure your tires are properly inflated. Simple thing. But we could save all the oil they are talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.”

I’m not kidding you. You just can’t make this stuff up!

Now, since his prescient comment about automotive air pressure and lube jobs, I’ve seen about ten different analyses regarding just how much oil we could save if Americans were to do those two things that Obama suggested. Given that there is about a trillion and a half barrels of oil in restricted areas in the form of crude oil and shale oil deposits, it would take Americans over 11,000 years to save the equivalent gasoline with crackerjack AAA-recommended care of their cars.

I don’t know about you, but I’d like to save some dough in my lifetime!

I’m not quite sure how the Democrats got stuck on the “no drilling” plan, but I’m convinced that they’re putting ideology firmly in front of common sense and the welfare of US citizens. Even the most ardent Democratic supporters must admit that it sounds silly to declare that drilling for oil and increasing supplies won’t help to lower the price of gasoline and help to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Well, even if you won’t or can’t admit it is, it is!

And the corollary theory to the “no drill” plan is similarly daffy. Don’t know what that is? Well, the Democrats are now getting tough — they are insisting that oil companies drill on the lands that they have already leased. Their so-called “use it or lose it plan” sounds tough, and makes the oil companies look greedy by their proposing it. However, scratch the surface of this tough talk, and it’s plain that this isn’t tough talk…it’s a juvenile attempt to embarrass big oil companies and to deflect attention away from the problem at hand. The problem of inadequate supplies available to American consumers (and consumers worldwide.)

The “use it or lose” it demand would be perfectly valid if the existing oil leases were sitting atop lakes of oil. In fact, very few of the existing oil leases have appreciable, drillable oil under them! The vast majority of US oil reserves exist under legislatively-restricted areas that need to be opened by the Congress in order for oil exploration to take place. Simply put, oil companies want to make money — for their shareholders. Surprise, surprise!! So, they want to go where the oil is and drill where the oil actually exists. Not into speculative, hit or miss wildcatter lease areas. Again, is there anyone who thinks that the oil companies are sitting on vast deposits of oil in their present leased lands?

I didn’t think so! Because if they were, they be drilling NOW!

And before you jump on your high horses…I realize that the oil companies are seeing record profits. I say…GOOD FOR THEM! That’s the hallmark of capitalism. See, profits aren’t the most important part of the cost of gasoline…it’s the actual foreign-supplied crude oil itself, at roughly 86% of the price of gasoline. And profits follow after gasoline and other taxes currently placed on gasoline/oil sales. This leads us to the third prong of the Democrat’s solution to the energy crisis. They want to place a “windfall” tax on the profits of oil companies. Hmmm…let’s see, legitimate US companies making legitimate profits on a high-demand and short supply commodity. Oh, that’s a BAD thing! At least in the universe of though of the egalitarian, share-the-wealth socialists who describe themselves as Democrats. See, since there are many players in the petroleum industry, the Democrats can’t claim there is a greedy monopoly at work. They can’t use legislation to break up that bad, bad monopoly like they did so successfully with the former “Ma Bell”, AT&T (that worked out well’ didn’t it?).

So they need another tool to exact their vengeance against big oil. And that tool would be the threat of “windfall” taxes. A tool of retribution and peevish jealousy rather than a legitimate means for lowering the price of gasoline. So, here we see the vapid, bankrupt plan of the Democrats to lower gasoline prices in it’s fully glory: ridiculous proposals, inane demands and blunt-force intimidation.

Sounds like a plan to me!

No, rather it sounds like the desperate gropings of an idea-barren political party adrift in a situation that they cannot understand and, furthermore, cannot control with their usual approaches. You know, like taxing the problem until it goes away.

I guarantee you that this problem will not go away until the Democrats wake up to reality and concede that drilling for actual oil is the ONLY way to increase actual oil and gasoline supplies. Yes, we must conserve when we can…but oil will not appear unless we DRILL FOR IT!

Word has it that the first half of 2008 has been cooler than average, historically speaking. Notwithstanding the recent crying jag regarding the possibility of an “iceless” North Pole, things on the catastrophic climatological front have been rather quiet.

No killer hurricanes out there menacing our eastern seaboard. No risng oceans swamping our coastal cities. No untoward atmospheric mood swings to be blamed on carbon emissions (except maybe a few sprinklings of comments that the floods in the Midwest were the result of, ta da, anthropogenic global warming!). No cute and cuddly species taking that final Darwinian curtain call as a result of the pizza oven-like searing heat that has gripped the world as a result of greenhouse gasses.

It’s been sort of a refreshing break to not hear some twenty- or thirty-something naysayer newsreaders, whose education obviously exceeds their abilities, spout the party line of a shot of doom with a gloom chaser. Maybe vacations and a preoccupation with “Jesus” Obama, the lord and savior of our Republic, will hold their attention and that of the remainder of the MSM until summer’s end.

We can only hope…

Next Page »