Strike While the Crisis is “Hot”

hottest-hoaxSo I was perusing the news today while on my dinner break, reading about the South Carolina Governor Hoo Ha. I clicked back out to the main articles and delved into the articles about Ahmadenijad giving the US a stern verbal warning for interfering in their election process and governmental affairs (Did he even watch Obama’s press conference?). And low and behold I saw the article that would be the chosen topic for the day. The article was titled “Obama: Now Is the Time to Pass Climate Change Bill”. You guys know what I think of this whole man made global warming bullcrap. So I read the article to see what kind of bullcrap environmentalist rhetoric would be shared with us today. It turns out that this is a lot of more of the same, but we are already again seeing the terms crisis and imminent threat being throw around in regard to climate change. And I am not buying it even one little bit. Game on Mr. President.

I will put a link to the bottom of the article as I intend to use several of the quotes from it as I discuss the bulldookey that is being the latest form of control thrown at us. Let me say up front that when it comes to the issue of man made global warming or climate crisis, I am not a conservative or a liberal. I am a member of the “this is a complete load of liberal bullshit party”. I understand that this will mean that Ray will label me a closet Republican who is serving a secret undercover agenda, possibly with the assistance of Dick Cheney and Sean Hannity. If thinking that the two green terms above are complete malarkey are “conservative” points of view, count me in. Whatever label you like is fine. Matters not to me. But if you want to argue a point, argue my point, not the fact that I “serve an agenda or a party”. We should all know better than that by now. I only serve me…

Obama New EnergyThe article began with, “President Obama is pressing again for passage of legislation that would confront the problem (you mean myth) of global warming head-on.” I found that I was already feeling the pressure building in my head (See liberals, Obama has a physical effect on all of us, puts a tingle in Chris Matthews leg and puts a splitting headache in my noggin). First of all, man made global warming is a myth. Therefore, there is nothing you can do to stop it as you aren’t the one causing it. Second, this legislation does not “confront the problem head on” as much as it uses the “problem” as an excuse to pass more legislation that institutes controls on the private market, and eventually, on individual citizens.

According to the article, Obama said Washington must not miss the opportunity (never waste a good crisis) to work on cleaning the air and at the same time creating new “green” energy jobs. He called the measure “a jobs bill” and said the country for far too long has been too reliant on energy from fossil fuels. Interesting that the language is beginning to change to being about jobs, not the climate crisis. I suspect that they are starting to realize that one crisis is starting to be questioned (the climate crisis) while the other (economy crisis) worsens. And they don’t care which crisis it is that they use to get this done, because it isn’t about solving any crisis anyway. Obama went on to say, “I know this is going to be a close vote because there is misinformation out there.”

And he is absolutely correct. There is a lot of misinformation out there, mostly courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, Al Gore, and the guys who wrote the bill. The CBO did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Co-author Edward Markey let America know the good news immediately: the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Talk about putting out misinformation. Markey is not just spinning the facts. He is outright lying, and he knows he is lying. So what is the truth about the CBO report?

Climate Change Yes We Can BumperThe Wall Street Journal was one of the few who dedicated some time to studying the report and noted the following problems with what Markey was claiming as a result of this bogus report:

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Remember my previous article about Cap and Trade and how we discussed that the initial “Cap” will eventually be ratcheted down in order to bring down emissions. That article can be seen here: Coming Soon… The Breathing Tax . That means that taking a snapshot of one year and calling it the reality fails to take this “ratcheting down” into consideration. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to “offset” their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. But surely by 2020 we would have an accurate information point, right?

Wrong. To get support for his bill, Henry Waxman was forced to keep the cap low in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. And as those restrictions kick in and the permits become more and more expensive, companies will become less and less profitable. Because that is how companies operate right? Or do companies maintain their profit margin by passing those increasing costs on to the consumer? I will let you answer that one on your own. I trust you to get it right.

Cow Fart CartoonThe CBO also made a giant omission in their report by looking only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy (an omission, according the the WSJ, that is clear only in the footnotes of the bill). The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result (verbatim from the WSJ article).

Also from the WSJ article: The CBO analysis is also an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families (but wait a second, I thought that the Democrats are the ones looking out for poor folks and defending them from those evil rich capitalist pigs). What gives?

This bill is similar to the one offered by Joe Lieberman and John Warner (See: an Independent and a Republican that I disagreed with, imagine that) during the last Congress, which was S.2191. The net job losses from S. 2191 were estimated by Charles River Associates to be 1.2 to 2.3 million by 2015. Some job losses would be permanent due to the impact of higher energy costs on economic activity. Others, chiefly in the manufacturing sector, would be sent overseas. In the very likely event that S. 2191 significantly raised domestic manufacturing costs and that developing nations refused to impose similar restrictions (highly likely), the American economy could have experienced a substantial outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to those nations with lower energy costs. Because we needed yet another government program forcing jobs overseas. Fortunately the bill never made it to a vote, and died with the mid-term elections wiping out all non-passed legislation. Not to be defeated, the “environmental” lobby then got this Waxman/Markley bill started and it is reaching its climax.

All Going to DieThe Heritage Foundation, an admittedly conservative think tank (imagine that someone who admits their bias. Are there ANY groups that admit to having a liberal bias?), did a far more comprehensive analysis. When they did their analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

So what is the reality of this. As the WSJ article pointed out, the models used to predict what the results of the program on the economy and the American taxpayer are all only as good as the data fed to them. The CBO report is obviously flawed for a large variety of reasons, yet is touted as gospel by those pushing this legislation. The Heritage numbers are from a conservative think tank, and even though far more comprehensive in what went into them, we have to assume that a conservative think tank has the ability to make the numbers worse than they might really be. So I would throw my estimate somewhere in between the two. But the article from the WSJ correctly pointed out that we CAN take a look at the actual results we see in countries already using a program like this one. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is already paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs that have been in effect only a few years.

And just to show that this bill has no intention of looking out for the taxpayer, I submit to you the discussions that were happening during the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments:

  • one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon
  • one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009
  • one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%.

Democrats voted all three of them down.

Pelosi and Markey Discuss the Bill

Pelosi and Markey Discuss the Bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a vote on the bill for Friday. While Democratic support has been growing, she is still believed to be short of the votes needed to get the bill through. The Senate, meanwhile, is waiting for the House to act. Approval of a climate bill in the Senate has been viewed as a long shot because it will require 60 votes to overcome a certain filibuster. And that has made a decision by some House Democrats to vote for the politically charged bill even harder.

Republicans largely oppose the bill, arguing that it amounts to a massive energy tax because it will force higher prices on electricity, gasoline and other energy sources as the economy shifts from cheaper fossil fuels, or companies and utilities are forced to buy pollution allowances.”What we see is a job killer,” Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking Republican in the House, said at a news conference Wednesday. “There’s no question the cap-and-trade will cost millions of jobs” and higher energy prices.

A new Washington Post-ABC News (cause ABC is showing their non-bias lately aren’t they) poll shows that 75% of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release of greenhouse gases (I read that to say 75% of liberal ABC News watchers said…). The poll also found that 56% said they would approve such measures even if it increased their monthly electricity costs by $10 (Unfortunately as noted above even the faulty estimates from the CBO would be over $14 a month, see how these polls give false information in order to skew the results?).

Cavemen global warmingSo what do I personally believe? I believe that the idea of “Carbon credits” is one of the most massive frauds ever pulled on the American Taxpayer. I believe that this is exactly the reason why Al Gore and his madmen spent so much time and energy convincing the world of a false hoax such as manmade global warming. They created a new religion in order to get to the point where such a thing really can happen. There are trillions of dollars to be made on the sale and trade of carbon credits. History is full of examples of sheep being led to slaughter, but none on such a grand scale as we have today.

I believe that the President and Democrats in Congress are attempting to rush this bill through as quickly as possible because the world has woken up a bit and the debate has been opened again. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the good old USA. The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. That is 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policy makers.

Global Warming ObamaI believe that the world is starting to wake up to the myth. There will be those who simply refuse to accept any facts that refute their undying belief in man made global warming. And that is OK. I don’t care what people believe. I care what gets put into law in order to control us when the facts show me that their underlying premise is a lie. We need to get fired up about this upcoming legislation and let our Senators and Representatives know what we think, regardless of the fact that BF is going to tell us not to waste out time. There is a link to find your representative and contact them over there in my blogroll.

So I am open to learning, as always. Where am I off base here? I am pretty steadfast on this one. I have been researching and debating global warming for a very long time. And I haven’t found someone to change my mind yet. Perhaps that day will come……

I used a significant amount of information from two articles for this post. You can read them both to find that roughly 30% of my article came directly from these two sources and some additional research to verify the data in the articles.

The first article was from Fox News and you can read it here:

The second was from The Wall Street Journal and you can read it here:

The Cap and Tax Fiction –


  1. Alan F. says:

    When SCIENCE requires FAITH it then becomes RELIGION.

  2. Cyndi P says:

    Good article USW. I’ve felt the same as you do for a couple of years now. I too believe the sheep are starting to stir and that’s why Obama and is minons want to rush this legislation through. I hear a lot of people talking about the next vote, and how the people will make their feelings known. I want to believe that Obama and his wrecking crew will respect the will of the people. However, I’m not so sure that will be the case. When I look at all the power Obama is grabbing while he thinks most folks aren’t paying attention, I have to wonder what his plan is. Why grab all that power if you have no intention of using it? Neither party has been overly concerned about respecting the will of the people. I think we agree on that point. The Dems have made a huge financial investment to get into power. I don’t think they’ll give it up that easily. So, will we have free and fair elections, election rigging as in Iran, or suspended elections due to civil unrest and martial law? Now, before someone goes and accuses me of being a nut job, please ask yourself why Obama would grab so much power if he didn’t intend to use it? Why rush through all this legislation if he’s willing to respect the will of the people, assuming the people can be bothered to find out what’s really in store for them.

  3. Okay, a little input from a geezer . . .

    Way back when I was in fifth grade we learned that the Earth periodically wobbles in its orbit around the Sun. Moving further away at times causes an ice age, getting closer causes it to get a little warmer.

    Then back in the 1970’s I kept hearing about how the Earth is getting colder when all of a sudden near the end of the 1980’s I started hearing this global warming crap.

    For some reason, I guess that it is just believing that my fifth grade teacher was much more intelligent than Mr. Al “Huggatree” Gore, I believe that the Earth actually wobbles in its orbit around the Sun.

    Man made global warming is nothing but crap.

    • Actually its not and that’s the rub. Where the “movement” runs aground is in the degree to which global warming by human interaction withing the globe occurs. There’s as much merit in starting a movement to eradicate scurvy in the year 2009. You might laugh but it still exists although not to the degree a “End Scurvy Now” campaign would use for rhetorical purposes. Its all marketing.

      In this case the tell tale signs of the “movement” VS one of the “science” are belief, demonizing/condemnation and fear.

      The movement requires rhetoric which affords the sale of the product which in this case is the simple and acceptable “we all love the planet and our children”. You have to get them nodding in agreement. The second part of that belief is the needed reaffirmation of what we would do and sacrifice “for the sake of our planet and children”. There has to be sufferance in a movement. That “something can be done” is the third part of that belief and is itself absolutely paramount to finalizing the sale. That what we can do will accomplish something tangible.

      The use of inflammatory rhetoric is the next part of a movement. “Why is my product worthy of your attention above all others without having to actually prove such.” This is easiest accomplished by demonizing ie. “The Man/Big Oil/Big Pharma” which places something in opposition to the mark and condemnation through the existing channels within today’s media celebrity structure even as far as to using martyrdom itself. Nowhere is the use of condemnation over evidence stronger than within the society of media darlings and for good reason. The general population will unconsciously imbue their favored celebrity with the characteristics of those they portray and in doing so empower them with an understanding beyond the public awareness, beyond their ability to question. That this belief occurs only in the absence of dialog and in an environment devoid of argument should be missed by none.

      In the end we have the use of fear and in that this has been used OUT OF THE GATE by the GWA (global warming alarmists) was indeed the red flag I first saw. Fear is used in sales when merit fails. It is the second last resort of the salesman and the last while still maintaining control of the sale itself. Scare the mark into believing there is no choice. Scare the mark into believing there will be no second chance. Scare the mark into ignoring that little voice of reason which is asking him to step back and take a breath or make him doubt its accuracy. You can’t let the mark get his bearing, EVER. Should this all fail, then what’s left is the discount which (in effect throwing control over to the mark but removing him from being “sold” by your competition) can still be used for fear mongering with regard to the next sale through the “he jumped on board and you can’t afford to miss out” or through doubt in the “what does he see that you can’t” pitch.

      Comprehend folks, all pressure sales work under this regardless of the product.

  4. “Man made global warming is nothing but crap.”

    I wouldn’t go that far – I would say that man has had a very small, minimal effect on the climate. But nothing to warrant the reaction being pushed by politicians. This is a natural cycle. The earth has been warming for thousands of years, why all of a sudden is it “man made global warming” when the rate changes? Is it mans fault or a natural phenomenon? I have not seen enough data to say its man’s fault (it maybe out there but my research hasn’t found it).

    Another fascist emergency by the powers that be to screw people over and do what they want. After the economy and global warming what’s next? Global disarmament? Racial equality? Gender equality? It will be fascinating to see how they railroad through the next “crisis”!

    • Keith E. says:

      No, I would say that man made GLOBAL warming is total crap. It is the LOCAL changes that we are responsible for.

      With the legislation that we already have, we have made great strides in fixing those problems. Have we got it perfect? No, but we have undone a significant part of the damage we did to local ecologies in the last 100 years. And that progress is still coming and at a faster and faster rate.

      Do we have the capability to effect things Globally? Yes we absolutely do, in deliberately setting out to destroy the world kind of way. Are we at that point now? No not at all.

  5. Vinnster says:

    If properly recorded Man Made Global Warming will go down in history as one of the greatest scams ever pulled off on a populace. I have some experience in the area. For 13 years I installed/trained/repaired analytical instruments for HP. Analytical instruments are used to measure chemical compounds and gases, in many cases down to the parts per billion. They include Mass Spectrometers, Atomic Emission Detectors, Gas Chromatographs, Liquid Chromatographs…

    Few non-science lay folks are exposed to these instruments primarily because they are used in analytical labs, but if you know what to look for you see them all the time on TV in scenes with labs in the background.

    I will add this little piece of real life experience to demonstrate just how solid the CO2 data is and the kind of “experts” the believers stake their “beliefs” in.

    At the time I was working out of Orlando and NASA was my customer. I go over to repair a HP5880 Gas Chromatograph. Of course as was the case in many service calls to government/academia (more on this later) the 5880- was working fine and the problem was operator error (with analytical instruments the data is solid 80% of perceived broken instruments are operator error).

    The operator was your typical government/academia quality PhD. The 5880 was operating fine, the problem was the brilliant (in his mind) PhD.

    After reeducating the great PhD on the proper operation of the 5880 I hung around a bit to make sure the reeducation actually “took”.

    Now the great PhD NASA scientist was testing …..drum roll……CO2 levels in the air. On a 5880 you use a gastight syringe, the proper separation column and a thermal conductivity detector.

    I observe him walk out in the hall and draw a sample of air to use. Now let me put this in perspective…the idiot is taking a CO2 sample in a closed building full of humans exhaling CO2. I casually mention sampling in the building and not outside would result in elevated CO2 levels in his data…..the idiots reply……I try to make sure no one has walked by in the last few minutes!

    This type of “science” conducted by the government/academia PhD was the norm , not the exception. In those 13 years and average week put me in private labs (chemical companies, pharmaceutical, food, manufacturing, chemical warfare labs [a scary experience]and oil/gas ) 4 days a week and in a government/academia lab 1 day a week. The contrast in the level of scientific expertise was staggering.

    The private labs, which paid big bucks for its PhDs, had people that were brilliant (especially the pharmaceutical labs), hard working (it was not uncommon form to be in the lab at 6AM or 7PM), and extremely knowledgeable in the workings of analytical equipment. Operator error on their part was very rare.

    Now in the government/academia labs it was just the opposite. Their PhDs were barely functional and what made it the toughest, they believed themselves to be the smartest people on the planet. It was so bad my coworker often tried to avoid them at all costs. We would trade 2 or 3 private calls if someone would take the government/academia call.

    You may ask how can this be? Here is the dirty little secret about government/academia “scientist”. It works like this. Take two hard-science( chemistry, biology, physics) undergraduates, one brilliant and one dumb as a rock. They get into graduate school (yes dumb ones can get into grad school). By the time they have their first year under their belts the brilliant students existence already already known by head-hunters for top private sector labs (how they know is another post). These head-hunters aggressively recruits these students to NOT go for the PhD, but to stop at the Masters level and go to work for six figures as soon as they finish the Masters. Most go into the private sector. Some do stay for the PhD, but have a job waiting for them when they finish with the top labs in the world (many were foreign).

    The dumb student is not recruited. By the time they finish their Masters they have nowhere to go, so they stick around for the PhD. When they finish the PhD they still have few, if any job offers in the private sector, so where do they go…you guessed it, into government/academia labs that pay crap (compared to private labs, but still good pay compared to average salaries).

    So the result is this, the Masters/PhD system acts as a filtering system to filter out the brilliant students who go into private sector positions. The dumbest students, the lowest performing “scientist” in the given field go into government/academia…and it is these worst-of-the-worst who are the very “scientist” that are promoting the Global warming hoax. Is it a consensus, you bet, but it is one of self serving, grant dependent flunkies that are too incompetent to function in the private sector.

    Any careful review of the “science” out their clearly demonstrates and has been repeatedly shown (but not reported by the MSM) the government/academia consensus data is built on junk science by nitwit government/academia PhDs like Mann, Gavin, Hansen).

    Sorry for the long post, but this truly is one of the biggest con jobs ever perpetrated on the non-science public.

    • Vinnster, thank you for your insight. Good post.

    • To add another point, the equipment that are in alot of the government/acadamia sectors don’t get calibrated as often as the private sector equipment due to the added cost to get them tested. Makes you wonder if their test equipment is even measuring accurately most of the time.

      • Kym, for the benefit of us non lab types, who performs the calibration, the operator or a Vinnster-like techie? thanks c

        • Usually there are techies specifically trained to calibrate specific equipment. Some companies do employ their own cal-labs, but very rarely.

          • Vinnster says:

            Kym is correct. The gotcha is the equipment used to do the calibrations is expensive and they must also be calibrated and traceable to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) lab.

            Many small labs can not afford the equipment or staff to do the calibration so the manufacturers provide it for a fee. Also. large labs want it done by the manufacturers to provide an independent calibration.

            Over the years I perform hundreds of them and they are legally valid for six months, but in reality they are only valid for that instant in time. Analytical instruments are extremely complex devices that incorporate electronics, thermodynamics, radiowave, microwave, lightwaves, plasma, electron beams, gas flow dynamics, …and on and on, depending on the instrument.

            As an example, the Mass Spectrometer is considered the holy grail for compound identification and quantification ( a complex molecule will split into the exact same “spectra” of smaller molecules when hit with the same Electron Volt of energy). That spectra is the equivalent to a fingerprint it is so unique.

            Will a single sample hold up in court. No. Because there are so many things that can affect the results. The only way it will hold up in court is to run a known “standard” (a known compound and quantity)just before the unknown sample is run and immediately after the unknown. The standard before the unknown and after the unknown must be show accurate results before the unknown run between them is legally valid.

            Another example of how sensitive external factors can be, a Refractive Index Detector can give erroneous results simply by having an air conditioner vent too close, or sunlight shining on it or in extreme cases a human standing in front of it too long if it is not properly insulated.

            Even in analytical instruments a temperature sensor is considered calibrated if it is within + – .1 C degrees. An variation of .1 C of that amount included in 10 years of data can easily produce the kind of warming the Global Warming kooks say is fact.

            Now with that in mind go over to and review the data from the surface station study conducted where it was found 80% plus of US surface stations do not meet the US own standards for proper placement (to close to heat sources) and you start to see the folly of Global Warming Claims. And that is just the beginng from an instrument perspective.

            When you get into the data manipulation (and gross falsification)by folks like Mann and Gavin who make up data out of thin air and are only caught when they are forced to release their source data by a Freedom of Information request(Mann Hockey Stick debacle and Gavin Antarctica Warming study where data was manufactured and back filled to produce the desire results) months later by real scientist and statisticians you start to see Global Warming is based on junk science and dishonest incompetent scientist with an alternate agenda.

            If we had an honest press, Man Made Global Warming would be known to the common man as something on par with the Abominable Snowman.

        • Alan F. says:

          If you asked my best friend Murray he’d tell you, “An uber chemist does it himself if only to afford a good nights sleep.”

    • JayDickB says:

      Excellent story. I worked for the Federal Government most of my working career, and what you say rings true. There are a few exceptions, but very few.

      Most of the problem is with the personnel/pay system. They can reward good performers only so much because of pay caps. And, it is very difficult (as in nearly impossible) to get rid of people for poor performance.

      • Vinnster says:


        I also worked for State government for a few years and you are dead-on correct. There is a small percentage of people that are competent and intelligent that work for the government and they chose to stay for many personal reasons.

    • Alan F. says:

      The term “science of omission” was coined for a reason.

  6. Barberian says:

    Here’s how the new administration is supporting Mr. Hussein Obama’s pledge “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”

    Read this article in the S.F Chronicle no less.

  7. Let me begin by saying that President Obama is a very cunning individual. The big talk this week on the news is the passing of some sort of healthcare bill while the actual agenda of the administration is to push this cap and tax bill through…with little fanfare leading up to it. There are many magicians who are admiring this man for his slight of hand.

    Global warming…now being called climate change is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. There is NO solid data to support this hoax, it is mostly made up of flawed science and suppositions of data that are suspect on their best day.

    It is my opinion that the individuals pushing this are not the least bit concerned with the climate, rather are extremely interested in grabbing more tax dollars to use to further erode our individual liberties…this is one of the most troubling government grabs I have ever witnessed. If I was not here to see it, there is no way I could believe it…simply amazing how stupid our politicians think we are!

    • Alan F. says:

      I don’t believe he’s able to get away with anything more than the American people are letting him. Where you see a “smart man” I see one with an agenda and not a soul in his way. There’s little cunning involved when the “news” sources are bent over, cheeks parted, with a big smile on their faces and a ready “thank you” for being made use of.

  8. I have a slightly different view on this topic. I do believe the world climate is changing in some ways. Now do I believe it is all man made-no. The earth is a living being for the most part, it is going to change. I do believe in taking care of the land we are living on. I always thought it was funny that we are trying to hard to make electric cars, but we dont think we need to do anything about all the trash we dump into the ocean. Now do we need to spend 45t on this-not at all.

  9. Bee in my Bonnet says:

    I used to be a global warming believer (back when I was a koolaid drinking MSM watcher) until one day, my husband challenged me to research the subject. Wow, I couldn’t believe the amount of scientific research that refuted the man-made global warming ideology. I am amazed that the man-made global warming got any traction with all the science that disproves it. I watched a video called the “Great Global Warming Swindle” that absolutely clinched it for me.

    I found a website from someone who has made it his mission to present the science to refute the man-made global warming theory:

    Research is added to it constantly and it’s a little overwhelming because of the sheer amount of papers and information on it but it’s laid out in categories (one is about Al Gore, one is about the so called ‘consensus’, one about the “hockey stick” theory and so on) so it’s less overwhelming.

    • Bee,

      What flavor of koolaid do you like? Grape for me. Great link!!
      The 20/20 video is on target. I cut this from the intro–

      “The current man-made global warming hysteria is largely driven by the environmentalist movement in an attempt to reshape western society away from capitalism by implementing state control (socialism) over private energy usage (Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade). These environmentalists wish to get rid of the suburbs, SUVs, single family homes and return western society to a neo-urbanistic state of living.”
      I can agree with all said here, environmentalist are fighting nearly all energy projects, including solar or wind farms.

      I think there are different agendas that have found common ground with this issue. The environmentalist who wish to force us to simply consume less energy. And another group that seems interested in what will hurt or destroy our economy.

    • Alan F. says:

      Even the British maritime office, admitted greenies themselves, had written an article on the damage done to what they saw as the environmental movement by the GWA’s.

  10. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – thanks for the carping call out – tasted good with my coffee this a.m. 😉

    1. I will not argue herein the collision of science and opinion – much as I like Tom Friedman I’m not sure who is really objective any more so I can be sure that my view on it is rooted in fact – we can argue sources all day long. Lately I have tried to think in more simplistic terms about the issue – that simpleton-ness is really just the idea that our science has advanced enough to tell us that burning fossil fuels is bad – the output of the process (energy and waste) is not wholly positive. If anything, our science is maybe not far enough along to tell us with more precision as to the longer term effects – enough precision to prove/disprove existing theory or create and update newer theories. Given what we understand as the Earth’s ability to self-correct and cleanse, I’m not sure that is compelling enough for me to say “drill baby drill” and keep chugging the black, hoping/expecting that the notion of ‘we don’t know what we don’t know’ will not hurt us. Now – before you jump in my face – the logic used therein does not give a blank check to the other side. I’m not a fan of more talk, more studies, more whatever – but if the science is incomplete or disparate enough now – how do we choose a path that is to the extreme one way or the other? In absence of such in this article/blog do I assume that the path du jour here is ‘we’re good to go, we need not do anything’?

    2. To the topic of jobs and economic impact – I’ve not yet read the sources shared, but I simply ask – have all variables been accounted for? What I am not clear on is what are the projections regarding job creation, industry creation and so forth? Do I dismiss T. Boone as a nutjob or is there something for real happening there? Just asking.

    Until later…..

    • Bee in my Bonnet says:


      Are you in favour of the Cap and Trade Bill?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I’ll admit to having not read the bill and have not looked much at counter-sources to the conservative ones used herein. On surface – I would oppose it – I’m not a fan of mucking with jobs and the economy much more than we have – you don’t treat a patient by applying all available treatment options at the same exact time.

        • I think your intuition regarding over treatment is dead on. Is their anyone in this Administration you could share that with?

          I don’t think I can get an audience.


    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Studies in European coutries that have tried a Carbon trading system estimate that there are about 2.2 jobs lost for every 1 job created by “new energy technology”. On net, from the data of the European countries that have tried it, carbon cap and trade is indeed a job killer.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Please note that I am not advocating abandoning research into energy alternatives to replace petroleum. Petroleum is icky stuff that does pollute the atmosphere, and it probably does have some limit to the global supply (though no one knows for sure what that limit is) and we pay a lot of money to countries that don’t like us in order to get the stuff.

        I think that research money should definitely continue to be spent on “alternative energy” and I am sure that some brilliant entrepreneurs will come up with something more efficient and less polluting in the not-too-distant future.

        I also advocate for drilling for a heck of a lot more of our own oil while we give “alternative energy” a chance to grow up. I would rather use our own than buy it from the people that don’t like us.

        A lot of the newer technology makes getting the oil out of the ground (or out of the sea-floor) a LOT less hazardous than it used to be and a lot less damaging to the environment in general.

        I say use what we have while we need it as a stop-gap to let alternative energy develop on its own through market forces. Also, don’t let the big oil companies distort market forces by allowing them to continue to buy up alternative enery patents and then quietly kill the technology. If the oil companies want the patents, find a way to strongly encourage them to develop the technologies involved.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Excellent observations Peter

        • JayDickB says:

          Problem is, what determines where the government research money goes? Objective analysis of potential? Forget it. It all boils down to politics.

          Billions are being wasted on research and subsidies that don’t have much long term potential.

          • That is why research dollars should be “market driven” and not dictated by political agenda.

            Peter raises an interesting dilemna regarding property rights and restriction of govt force (liberty)relative to Patents.

            If we combine that with BF’s continued and apparent distain for govt recognition of a non-person person in the form of corporations, we have a very interesting discussion topic.

            For example, should property rights only be extended to person persons? If so then the Patent hoarding issue goes away.

            If govt is properly controlled is there any reason for a non-person person to be sactified/created by the govt?

            Without such sactification the persons who run the non-person person would be legally and financially liable for their decisions. This might in turn eliminate the entire pollution issue.

            Just some thoughts to ponder.

            • JayDickB says:

              The only way to make research funding decisions market-driven is to get the government out of the research business. Hey, that doesn’t sound too bad.

        • Alan F. says:

          Ah but the notion that technology will afford fixes for the future, while historically proven accurate, does not sell itself to those carrying the banner “RIGHT NOW!” does it?

    • JayDickB says:

      T Boone is not a nutjob, he is a businessman. A pretty good one at that. He is heavily invested in wind energy. If big government subsidies go to wind energy, he will make another fortune.

      Pickens is looking out for Pickens; nothing more.

      • Alan F. says:

        Did you read what you wrote? He’ll make good on taxpayer monies?!? Holy crap!!! So would I with my “ObamaRx Health Assurance Healing Crystals and Decorative Paper Weights”. So how would that make me an uber savvy businessman to be one more swinging from the government teat? Better I was selling businesses adversely affected by government interaction short.

        • ObamaRx Health Assurance Healing Crystals and Decorative Paper Weights!!!

          Good Sir, please sign me up at your low introductory price and don’t forget to send my free clock-radio-cheese-slicer. sincerely….

    • Ray:

      The real problem is not the collision of science and opinion. It is the collision of science and political dogma or ideology, regardless of whose it is.

      While I agree that use of fossil fuels carries with it certain negative effects we always ignore the posititive effects.

      I have spent my entire career working in the environmental science arena and I am convinced that “honest” decisions require tradeoffs between environmental and economic considerations. It is very rare when they match up. The entire argument that we can have clean energy without some cost to the economy is FALSE.

      This does not mean that we as a society may not decide those tradeoffs are desired. My complaint is that nobody is willing to present us with the FACTS so that we can make a rational choice. That of course also requires that “they” implement the desired choice. It that means burning fossils then so be it. If it means going to 100% wind and solar then so be it. But “WE” need to know what the tradeoffs “REALLY” are.

      From your post I am thinking you and I may agree on this point. Is that correct?

      Oh, and in case no one has told you. That sleep deprivation you and your spouse suffer due to the little one will never go away. By the time the little one(s) grow up your sleep patterns will have changed. So don’t pass up the chance for naps or the occassional sleeping in when ever you get them.

      Best Regards

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        JAC – you have hit thine proverbial nail on the head in all accounts.


      • JAC,

        Well said! “the collision of science and political dogma or ideology”
        I think the UK is the only European country to meet their Kyoto target, and that was due to a market driven switch to natural gas for electrical generation. Which would not work in the US, due to the opposition to drilling for natural gas and opposition to natural gas power plants.

        Its a shame we can’t build more nuclear power plants and re-process their waste.

        You are also correct on sleep deprivation. Mine are thankfully past that stage.

  11. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Good Morning,

    Because I was a “Sheeple” in the not too distant past, I would like to address a possible theory on the “sheepleness” character that a lot of Americans (in my case, Generation Xer’s) have as it relates to “preserving” Earth.

    I was born in 1966, so I grew up to ‘70s TV commercials such as the “Crying Indian” over pollution…and Coke’s, “I’d like to buy the World a Coke”. The Crying Indian in particular is a commercial that had a profound effect on me as child…to this day, I remember it well and the feelings that it invoked in me – that I would NEVER litter, that I would to my best to clean-up Earth.

    Remember during the ‘80’s, the ozone layer scare – everytime I sprayed my hairspray, I thought that I was contributing to the decimation of the ozone layer. I made my Mom buy me “pump” hairspray instead of the cheaper “aerosol” cans…wow…we sure did use a lot of spray in those days.

    Over time and after the birth of my children, I’ve often thought that we inhabitants here on earth need to make sure that we leave an earth that habitable for our descendents…I THINK that a lot of people feel this way.

    Not being a scientist and believing what our leaders SAY is true, when Al Gore started his Dog and Pony shows on “Global Warming”, I was “scared” (not scared for myself, but scared for my future descendents). It has taken much patience on the part of my husband and some research on my part to convince me that Global Warming as subscribed (the sky is falling and we’ll all be dead) is a falsehood.

    Crying Indian on Horseback:
    Crying Indian in Canoe:
    Coke Commercial – I’d like to Buy the World a Coke:

    The Crying Indian Commercials were a good thing – They got across a great message…Who wants to live in a polluted world – do your part and pick-up your trash. The Coke Commercial was a good message…we are all people…let’s have that in common and get along with our international neighbors – Oh, and while you are doing it, buy a coke, because we have that in common too.

    Yes, these commercials were great (among the best ever) “marketing tools” to sell an idea/product, but I believe they were ICONIC and VISCERAL to most people. I believe that these commercials have inserted themselves into the subconscious and have a bearing on how some view their responsibilities towards Earth should be.

    For example: The Crying Indian Commercials give the message that the American People took a beautiful, unmarred land and turned sections of it into dump – in just 200 years! For me, every time my husband says, “I welcome Global Warming, I’m tired of being cold” or the “Hey…with Global Warming, we’ll get beach front property”, I get a bit annoyed – I think back to the image of that Indian (an actor of Italian descent) on the Hill with a tear coming out of his eye and I have a bad/sad feeling in my gut…I get this feeling even though I don’t believe the Global Warming bulldookey as it has been sold anymore.

    For example: The Coke commercial – Weary of scenes of war and death, how “refreshing” to see a group of people standing on a hill singing together beautifully…wow, wouldn’t that be wonderful.

    I guess my point here is that we Americans (I’m sure there are meaningful gut-wrenching commercials in other countries) are bombarded with what seem to be benign messages EVERYDAY and ALL DAY. Some of these messages stick and take root in our subconscious, some don’t. A lot of these commercials fulfill their missions to sell very well.

    A question that I have for you is that how can ‘normal’ Americans who don’t have time to research, who want to trust what they are told get past these deep-rooted messages?

    Kind regards,

    • “‘normal’ Americans who don’t have time to research, who want to trust what they are told”

      And there is the question that can be asked about almost every problem we face today, Too many people want to “trust what they are told” instead of thinking for themselves.

      I remember the Crying Indian and to this day never, EVER throw anything out of my car or litter at anytime whatsover. Todays commercials have the poor polar bear swimming endlessly (or so it seems) to some far away ice flow thats shrinking due to global warming.

  12. Naten53 says:

    I am a skeptic about “man made” global warming. I am not a skeptic about polution being bad for the environment.

    Case study: Pittsburgh, PA and surrounding area.

    Pittsburgh, PA is the steel city. As many of you are aware the steel industry in this country collapsed in the 1970s. I will not talk about the collapse just link to an interesting article I saw yesterday about Youngstown OH which is in the rust belt surrounding Pittsburgh.

    I did not live in or see Pittsburgh at the time period I am about to describe.

    The pollution from industry in Pittsburgh was awful to the point where street lights were on all day every day. The soot was that thick that it was dark. Forbes field during 1960 World Series as seen from the University Of Pittsburgh Cathedral Of Learning. That is not artistic affect or haze making the field gray, it is the soot. notice street lights on corners are on.

    Similar angle

    The point is pollution control is necessary. Just yesterday there was this article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

    In addition there are so many buildings in Pittsburgh that have limestone facades that only now have been cleaned from blackened to their original look of near white.

    Something does need to be done and continue to be done. There is a difference between pollution and carbon emissions though. Most places already control a large amount of the pollution they create. Carbon emissions have thus far been unable to contain. The cap and trade is a lot of crap that will just raise the cost of energy without actually accomplish what they are making it out to. There will still be the same amount of carbon just now the power plants will have to pay penalties that they pass onto you.

    • Naten53 says:

      Forgot to make the point while I was searching for those pictures and links that despite what media portrays Pittsburgh as the steel city even today, steel production is ALMOST non existent in the area. If you watch a football game they will show scenes from a steel mill and people that know the city today complain about why they are showing that, because people from the Pittsburgh area know the uneducated outsiders opinion of the city as being very dirty and are amazed at how beautiful the city is when they actually visit.

      • Cap and trade has nothing to do with lowering carbon emissions. It has everything to do with taxing. The government has borrowed so much money and has so many entitlement programs in place and planned, they have to have additional income. This is merely a crisis not to waste…

        • Terry,

          “It has everything to do with taxing.”

          Its just not that simple. Multiple agendas are involved here. Yes Al Gore may become a billionaire. There is world pressure on the US to adopt these measures, which will give them an economic advantage over the US. Environmentalist do not care about taxes, they want to reduce ALL energy usage. Think about the US in 1920, no home A/C, few personal automobiles, wasn’t life good?

          Political power
          Personal wealth
          Foreign interest, economic
          Foreign interest, hostile
          Domestic interest, hostile

          I am sure I’m missing some

          • The environmentalist are a scourge to the planet. Conservationists are the really concerned individuals.

            I was speaking from a purely polical point of view. The politicians are licking their lips with the thought of what to do with the added money this would add to their ill gotten coffers.

            And it is my belief (politically speaking) the main push for this is to fleece the American public.

            • Yoiu are correct.

              CO2 could be reduced by the govt just setting the CAP and ignoring the tax and/or trade.

              They could let the private sector deal with the TRADE and all would meet the goals.

              Ten pages of legislation max and all done.

              Of course the cost to the economy would be the same as the TRADE part or the reduced ENERGY production would drive prices up, up, up.

              But if green house gas production was the only TRUE goal it can be done without giving any more POWER to the FED GOVT.

              This is a giant Federal Tax Grab. Pure and simple.


              • They are going to try to pass this Bill on the potential of “yet to be developed technology”, in the words of one of the DEMOCRATS on the Energy Committee who, incidentally is also voting against it.

                They are actually putting this up for a vote before the full House and some of the technology to do some of this Pollution Control does not even exist!

                Even if I were a disciple of Global Warming, which I’m not, this is a very bad Bill.

  13. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Here is an interesting (and irrefutable) scientific fact for you all to chew on.

    The molecular weight of the main components of air are as follows:

    Nitrogen (N2) 28amu
    Oxygen (O2) 32 amu

    The molecular weight of CO2 is 44 amu. CO2 is HEAVIER than air.

    Also, the DENSITY of CO2 is 1.5x higher than the density of air.

    What does this mean????

    If you release CO2 into the air, it will migrate DOWN to the lowest point possible, generally at your feet, or even more preferably in a cave, a mine, or some other underground location.

    Air Pollution is generally measured 15 feet above the ground. The concentration of CO2 at 15 feet above the ground is generally moderately high. When CO2 is measured in the upper atmosphere, there is BARELY ANY of it there!

    How is CO2 going to form a barrier in the atmosphere that will trap solar radiation? It is heavier than air, it is more dense than air, when mixed with air, it sinks to the ground, or even goes below ground (suffocation from excessive CO2 levels is what killed a lot of coal miners back in the pre-canary-in-a-coalmine days, which is why they started bringing in the canaries…)

    Anyone care to attempt to refute that?

    • Peter, may I add some numbers instead of refuting?

      98% of earths atmosphere is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, argon & other gases
      2% is greenhouse gas

      So we are talking about effecting two percent of the atmosphere? Right?
      Not so fast. What are “greenhouse gases, this two percent causing this?

      95% water vapor (earth has more water than land)
      3.62% CO2
      1.38% other ( this is where cow farts figure in)

      And what generates that five percent?

      4.72% Ocean biologic activity, volcano’s, decaying plants (this is why environmentalist don’t care if you burn wood, has same impact as simple decay)and animal activity.

      5% minus
      0.28% greenhouse gases generated by humans (earths atmosphere is BIG)

      • LOI

        But the environmentalists due care if you burn wood. They are dead set against it. It is just that they are OK with the whole forest burning, becasue it is natural.

        • Morning or afternoon

          Up here in the sierras, they want to thin out the trees because of infestations and drying up, but the environmentalists have a conniption fit every time the subject is brought up. JAC, you’ve seen I’m sure some drying trees while here, and you can also see the dead and dying trees, but when the forest dept try and clear these, the tree huggers practically tie themselves to the trees. When we had those great big fires here a few years ago, it took forever for them to put out those fires. All they want to do, is thin out some areas in order to save the rest. We had a pretty big bug infestation that was killing the trees, and here they are, still standing, but dead, no new growth on them. Thought I’d throw my 2 cents worth in.

          Have a great day.


      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        And, of the 0.28% of greenhouse gasses generated by humans, the majority is water vapor. At most, 0.05% of the greenhouse gasses attributable to humans are in the form of CO2.

        Our total contribution to global warming since humans have existed on the planet is the equivalent of putting a drop of sulfuric acid in the Indian Ocean and then claiming that any acidity in the Ocean is directly attributable to human activity 🙂

        • Peter,

          You are showing signs of being a “right wing extremist”.
          Do you own a bible, a firearm, drive a SUV, have any bumper stickers that do not support Obama? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you should turn yourself into homeland security for transportation to Gitmo.

          • PeterB In Indianapolis says:

            If they send me to Gitmo, I can go to Palau or Bermuda for free soon!



  14. Michelle Malkin talks about this vote today on her site and also offers a link to make a phone call to voice your opinion.

  15. JayDickB says:

    If this stupid legislation is enacted (I hope it isn’t), it will not be too difficult to reverse. It will be several years before the serious provisions kick in and, by then, the hoax will be much more obvious.

    The health care reform legislation will be much more difficult to reverse.

    • JayDickB,
      I disagree. IF they pass this legislation, they will claim that they solved the problem. They saved the world….

      • JayDickB says:

        Never thought of that. Would they tell that big a lie? Yes, it they thought they could get away with it.

  16. Black Flag says:


    1. I will not argue herein the collision of science and opinion – much as I like Tom Friedman I’m not sure who is really objective any more so I can be sure that my view on it is rooted in fact – we can argue sources all day long.

    It’s not a matter of sources – that is a desire to drive some consensus.

    It is a matter of fact and science – regardless of consensus.

    The struggle with the lay citizen is attempting to understand mathematics and science. Frankly, the common citizen has no where near the background. There is no excuse for this, especially when political decisions are being made that will direct and seriously impact them.

    But be that as it is, the first step is to define the subject.

    When we talk about human activity, it is confined to the effects upon humans. There is NO HUMAN ACTIVITY that can change the Earth.

    Some posters here show the consequences of pollution on man. I agree – that is an ongoing – forever – problem that humans will continually sovle over and over again. There is nothing humans can do other than pollute – all life pollutes. The best humans can do is continually mitigate current pollution by creating future-type pollution. That’s life.

    But pollution is not the same as Earth’s Environment. There, we do nothing.

    I posted in yesterdays thread of a volcano exploding under the ISS. We are marveled at it – but this happens THOUSANDS of times a year; fortunately mostly in places where humans aren’t watching. That explosion was more powerful then US nuclear weapons. This happens 3 or 4 times, every day, somewhere. This is but one type of event.

    There is nothing – nothing no way – humans can do to change the Earth.

    If there were no bees, all life on earth would end.

    If there were no humans, life on earth wouldn’t even notice.

    Do not buy into the “Humans are God (or Satan)” base philosophy. We are, truly, nothing.

    Our job as humans is to take care of ourselves.

    PeterB in Indianapolis

    it probably does have some limit to the global supply (though no one knows for sure what that limit is)

    The amount that is available on Earth could be comfortably claimed to be – for human purposes – unlimited.

    Oil and complex molecules are all over the universe – entire planets are made of the stuff – it rains oil on moons around Jupiter.

    The challenge for humans is access. We have to go and get it, and that is the hard part – and costs money.

    I think that research money should definitely continue to be spent on “alternative energy” and I am sure that some brilliant entrepreneurs will come up with something more efficient and less polluting in the not-too-distant future.

    There are huge barriers against alternatives. There are reasons we use oil, and not wind. There are reasons we use coal, and not solar. There are reasons we use gasoline, and not steam or electricity.

    All things pollute. There is no such thing as ‘less polluting’ – it is merely a change of pollution of either its type or its location or both.

    PeterB in Indianapolis

    Here is an interesting (and irrefutable) scientific fact for you all to chew on.

    The molecular weight of the main components of air are as follows:

    Nitrogen (N2) 28amu
    Oxygen (O2) 32 amu

    The molecular weight of CO2 is 44 amu. CO2 is HEAVIER than air.

    Also, the DENSITY of CO2 is 1.5x higher than the density of air.

    What does this mean????

    If you release CO2 into the air, it will migrate DOWN to the lowest point possible, generally at your feet, or even more preferably in a cave, a mine, or some other underground location.

    Anyone care to attempt to refute that?

    Yes 🙂

    The atmosphere is know as a ‘well mixed gas’ where a sample of air from one part, will essentially contain the same percentages of gas and traces as any other part. ‘Well mixed gas’ is a phenomena of what is called ‘Vapor pressure’. Each gas exerts a pressure (called its partial pressure) which induces a mixing effect.

    So if you take a sample at 5,000 ft. you’ll find 60% N, 30% O2, and 0.0035% CO2. At 10,000 feet – you’ll find the same thing.

    There are definitely LOCALIZED differences, such as near a volcano or power plant, but over time the atmosphere stirs up these gases into a relatively balanced distribution.

    Another way to look at it – if the atmosphere organized itself by molecule weight – we’d all be dead 🙂 Ozone would blanket the surface – yet, it actually stabilizes at the highest point of the atmosphere. (It is there not because it floated there, but because it is created there).

    There are methods to cause separation of gases by weight – but they require G-forces in the range of thousands of times that on Earth. Gaseous centrifuges (which is the technique of purifying Uranium – heating the raw Uranium to a gas, and the spinning the mixture at high rate of velocity, and the heavier U-236 slowly separates from the lighter U-235).

    As an example, centrifugation of a sample at 5,000 RPM in a microcentrifuge that has a rotor with a radius of 7 cm will deliver a centrifugal force of 1,957 × g

    Fortunately, we only have 1-G earth 🙂 So, we get the benefit of the vapor pressure and well-mixed-gas atmosphere.

    Hope that helps!

    • Please forgive my blondeness, but why then do aircraft flying at higher altitudes require oxygen masks, and on mountains or higher elevation the air is “thinner”?

      • Black Flag says:

        Because there is less air there in volume.

        The percentage of O2 is the same – the amount of air is very small.

      • Black Flag says:

        That is also why airplanes that fly that high need either (1) go very fast or/and (2) very large wings.

        The lack of volume or quantity of air means less airflow over the wing – so that is compensated by speed (physically more air passing over the wing) or size (more area of wing).

        • USWeapon says:

          Velocity x Pressure = Velocity x Pressure.

          Works every single time without fail, lol

      • Airplanes are usually pressurized to one atmospheric pressure. It becomes mandatory at or above 10,000 feet. Still same air mix as Flag has noted. Scuba divers use the same compressed air until going below 120 ft.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Airplanes are not pressurized to sea level. At higher altitudes this would be almost impossible. They usually split the difference at around 8,000 ft.

        • Bama Dad says:

          Actually at 122 feet down your regulator provides 5 times one atmosphere pressure. 33 feet is double, 66 feet is triple and 99 feet is four times. It would take 5 times the volume of air to fill your lungs at 122 feet as it would take at sea level. It’s been a long time since diving class but I think I am remembering this correctly.

          • Was not getting into compression ratio’s, just its compressed air, not O2. Have not checked the scuba book, but I thought 33’=2X, 66’=4X, 99’=8X
            & 132’= nitrox

        • Black Flag says:

          Just to tune Chris’ accuracy – he is correct about the 8,000 ft., however, that is what is maintained.

          Sea level =14lb/
          8,000 ft = 10lb/sq. in.
          30,000 ft = 4lb/sq. in

          If it was averaged, @ 30,000ft, it would be 14,000 pressure, and most passengers would be unconscious…now, come to think of it…that would save a lot in food service 😉

          Of course, the another killer would be the cold -50C.

    • Black Flag says:

      My percentages of composition was inaccurate:

      Nitrogen 78.08%
      Oxygen 20.95%
      *Water 4%
      Argon 0.93%
      CO2 0.0360%

    • Black Flag says:

      Also, the well-mixed gas atmosphere is also the proof that Human-caused climate change has not occurred.

      IF the addition Co2 was a primary instigator of global warming, the molecule would radiate IR energy into the atmosphere. This would create a ‘heat signature’ in the atmosphere. This phenomena is a fact – agreed to by even the AGW proponents.

      Fact: No such indicator or ‘finger print’ exists.

      Therefore, the AGW proponents now claim that the satellites are wrong! 😆

      Oh well….

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      What you say is true, sort of…

      If CO2 were not more dense than air, it would not concentrate in a coal mine, a cave, or other sub-surface area.

      However, it is likely that the sources of the CO2 concentrating in these subsurface areas are from things like limestone (which gives off CO2) and that is why it got there in the first place.

      Also, this mixing of the atmosphere that you speak of does not happen instantaneously. It would take quite a bit of time to mix a large CO2 emission event uniformly throughout the atmosphere. Think of it as adding an ingredient of relatively higher density to a mixture. It is going to take a certain amount of mixing activity to get that ingredient incorporated into the rest of the mixture uniformly.

      Overall, your point is taken, with the caveat that this “uniform mixing” is not an instantaneous event, nor is it TRULY uniform, but for all practical purposes it can be said to be uniform.

      There is also a special exception to your uniform mixing rule, and this is the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere. Free-radical reactions of oxygen happen rapidly in the upper atmosphere due to strong UV radiation from the sun, thus forming a lot of ozone up there. However, the Ozone is unstable and either reacts with other chemicals or reverts to simle O2 too quickly for this ozone to be evenly mixed throughout the atmosphere; hence the reason that we have an ozone layer up there.

      A good example of the time it takes for mixing in the atmosphere to occur is to consider a city like Chicago that still emits a fair amount of pollutants. Give that city 10 days of 95 degree heat and 95% humidity with relatively calm winds and you will see just how poorly the pollutants mix into the rest of the atmosphere. Once it cools off and the wind picks up, the mixing will happen more rapidly.

      Now that I have blathered on forever… the main point that we need to realize is that CO2 makes up 0.036% (or 36/100000, or 360 parts per million) of the total atmosphere, and yet, this is such a HUGE amount of CO2 as measured in actuall tonnage of the gas, that everything that humans have emitted to date is totally insignificant by any rational comparison, which is where I am in 100% agreement with BF.

      • Black Flag says:

        However, it is likely that the sources of the CO2 concentrating in these subsurface areas are from things like limestone (which gives off CO2) and that is why it got there in the first place.

        Correct. It is there, not because it floated down – but because it is created there.

        Further, the cave causes an additional effect that does not occur in the atmosphere – containment. Same effect in a pop bottle.

        The atmosphere, however, is not contained.

        Also, this mixing of the atmosphere that you speak of does not happen instantaneously. It would take quite a bit of time to mix a large CO2 emission event uniformly throughout the atmosphere.

        As I said, there are locality differences. However, the time is known – 5 years – for the creation of something here to be averagely distributed. We know this by following gas isotopes created by the atmospheric explosion of nuclear weapons.

        Co2 does contribute a significant portion of the warming of the Earth. Bluntly, if there was no Co2 in the atmosphere (disregarding the need of it for plant food) the Earth would be a frozen ball of ice.

        However, the effect of ADDITIONAL Co2 concentrations is negligible. It is logarithmic. It would take 10x the amount of Co2 to merely double its effect.

        The fractional increase that has been measured (and that is under dispute too) has so little aggregate effect as to be ignored.

        The big factor is water – for a multitude of impacts – from water as a store of heat (oceans) – evaporation (cools the surface, warms the atmosphere) – precipitation (warms the surface; cools the atmosphere) – clouds (reflects sun away, but surface heat back) – and its overwhelming ability to absorb energy in the atmosphere.

        • PeterB In Indianapolis says:

          By the way, the UTTER CRAP I posted about CO2 being heavier than air and denser than air and therefore NOT mixing in the atmosphere came directly from a global warming skeptic article… I believe it was at National Review Online.

          This just shows how much BOTH sides stoop to junk science in order to try to fool the average person.

          I was hoping that JAC or BF or someone else here would recognize it for the CRAP that it was.

          As BF pointed out, even though CO2 is heavier than air and has a higher density, the concentration throughout the atmosphere is in fact uniform for all practial purposes.

          • Hell I was just going to ask you guys how things “float down”. I thought maybe we were discussing atmospheric conditions on Romulus.

            Figured that would take care of the rest.

            OK, somebody had to make a funny.

            I had to do chores so waited. I now see BF and you handled it while I was gone.

            Folks who want more should check out the Junk Science site and search for global warming documents. There are some you may not understand the body but you can skip to the conclusions. This site does a fair job of making complex math, physics and chemistry equations understandable. At least in terms of magnitude of cause and effect.


    • Black Flag says:

      Other effects of the well-mixed-gas.

      AGW zealots point to the existence of a certain isotope of Carbon in the atmosphere. This isotope was thought to only be created by man; that is burning of ‘fossil’ fuel (the fossil fuel theory is still a theory, and probably wrong..but that is another post…)- and thus a ‘human signature’. By measuring changes in this isotope, they believed they could also follow the sequestering of human Co2.

      Now, more research has found that this isotope is created by forest fires and volcanoes – both of which outproduce human activity. What the AGW zealots were essentially measuring was volcanoes!

      Perhaps a tax on volcanoes would be better served.

    • If there were no bees all life on earth would end? You’re going to have to explain to me how all life in the ocean is dependent on bees. Not all plants are bee pollinated. There are plants pollinated by bats, birds, wasps, flies, and wind. I’m sure a loss of all bees would have a big impact on biodiversity, but I’m pretty sure life would go on.

      • Bee in my Bonnet says:


      • USWeapon says:


        I believe that you are correct there. I tend to take what BF said as more a statement that Bees serve a purpose in ongoing ecosystem, where humans could be eliminated and it would change the ability of life to go on not one bit. Make sense?

  17. And so it passed 217 to 205. 😦
    Ben Lieberman’s article at the Heritage Foundation reveals the true cost to “we the people”.

  18. PeterB In Indianapolis says:

    Actually it only passed a TEST VOTE in the House by 217-205, which means that it will now go to the House for an ACTUAL vote… in other words, it hasn’t actually passed anything as of yet….

  19. Black Flag says:

    …our leaders are cruel because only those willing to be inordinately cruel and remorseless can hold positions of leadership in the foreign policy establishment … People capable of expressing a full human measure of compassion and empathy toward faraway powerless strangers … do not become president of the United States, or vice president, or secretary of state, or national security adviser or secretary of the treasury. Nor do they want to.”– William Blum, from the book Rogue State

    • PeterB In Indianapolis says:

      People with the integrity and honesty to be a good politician have no desire for the job, that is very true.

    • Conspiracy theory!!

      Did Obama have Michael Jackson assassinated to distract the American people from the tax & trade bill? Soon to be released, a video of Michael’s dying wish, that we save the earth from global warming.

      • Black Flag says:

        I call “It was Mossad”!

        BEIRUT, June 25 (Xinhua) — The Israeli army has set new military buildup along its border with Lebanon Thursday, amid intensified air force flights over Lebanese territories, the official national News agency (NNA) reported.

        Merkava tanks and armored vehicles were deployed along the wired fence separating occupied Shebaa Farms from Lebanese territories, the report said.

      • Black Flag says:

        Or he was “Terminated!” by Arny

        California lost more than Michael Jackson yesterday.

        They also lost their credit rating as Fitch dropped them to A-minus and even that rating was immediately placed on negative credit watch. California faces a $24 billion-plus budget deficit for the fiscal year that begins Wednesday, rapidly declining sales tax revenues and an impotent legislature that can’t agree on solutions. Faced with the prospect of running out of cash, State Controller John Chiang said Wednesday the state will begin to issue IOUs for all general fund payments other than those categories protected by the state constitution, federal law and court decisions.

      • Nah…he had it timed so he could upstage Farrah’s death. Showman to the very end

        • JudyS.NV. says:

          Okay, if there’s going to be jokes here about M.J. here is one my son sent over. Due to the fact that Michael Jackson is 99% plastic, it was decided that he will be melted down and turned into Legos so children can play with for a change.

        • When AIDS was very new, scary, and even less understood than it is today, an elementary school child in Kokomo, IN contracted the disease thru a blood tranfusion. He was banned from his public school; virtually shunned. His treatment generated national news. Micheal Jackson used his celebrity to benefit that child and stood with his mother at the child’s funeral if I remember correctly. The boy’s name was Ryan White.

          Micheal Jackson did many outrageous things and I would not have left my son alone with him, but I remember that episode and how it improved one person’s last days and I will pray for him.

          • I am content to let God and history judge him, and will include a prayer.

          • I remember the Ryan White story. Michael had many demons, but was truly a talented person. I’ve been youtubing some of the old Jackson 5 stuff and it is really fun to watch and hear those songs again.

            I pray for his kids and his family and hope he will finally have peace.

            • Amen. I remember ‘rockin robin’ and the jr high girl boy skate at the roller rink… Hard to believe it was that long ago… Do you remember The Man in the Mirror?

              • Kristian says:

                I remember watching the Thriller video on a giant screen at our roller rink. I hope that he is at peace as well. I never believed that stuff about him molesting kids. He was too much of a kid himself. And before anyone blasts me for that I was a victim of molestation and I promise you had I been given the opportunity to prosecute no amount of money would have stopped me. You can’t buy that kind of pain from someone. The fact that those people settled told me that it didn’t happen.

          • USWeapon says:

            I was a fan. Not a mega fan crying all night at his death, but a fan of his immense talent. He was perhaps the most famous person on earth.

            I agree that the negative stuff and the signs of him being “Crazy” dominated his later life, but no one should ever forget the tremendous talent and the tremendous empathy and compassion that he had for nearly everyone. I think he was a truly good person, and tend to think that the molestation things were nothing more than some people attempting to take advantage of his mistakes and get rich. I believe he was weird, but not criminal.

            But make no bones about it, the human race lost an asset yesterday. A man with the mind of a child who truly cared about nearly everyone around him. I never once heard of him being petty or cruel to anyone. And that says a lot.

        • Black Flag says:

          In seriousness,

          I am convinced that he was a spiritually oriented, sensitive, and even a genuis who had never hurt anyone – even though his emotional inclinations might have looked unusual to an average Joe.

          However, his dollars were irresistible for lots of parasites while his fame was too strong a source of jealousy for others.

          • USWeapon says:

            I also wrote about Michael Jackson in tonight’s post. I agree with what you say here about him. I think he was simply still emotionally a child himself. But it is hard to find someone who did more for others than he did.

      • Conspiracy theory 2!! Project 912 server down, did Pelosi pull the plug?


        We are still trying to work out the problems on the website. Things started going a bit wonky after an upgrade to the latest version of the software…
        Read more
        Dear 9/12ers

        Many of you with decent powers of reasoning have surmised that we were again working on the site today. Rest assured that we sweat to make it work as..

        Should we vote on best theory at the end of the day? Gotta go with Michael, doesn’t have to make sense if its got a good beat!

  20. If we are so worried about global warming, why are we building more airports?

    Federal Government Funds New $21 Million Airport for Alaska Town With 46 Residents

  21. Black Flag says:


    A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.

    The source, who chooses not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said that Carlin was rebuffed in his attempt to introduce scientific evidence that does not accord with the EPA’s view of global warming, which largely relies on IPCC reports. The source also saw Carlin’s report and said that it was ‘based on 8 points of peer-reviewed, recent and relevant scientific publications’ that cast doubt on the wisdom of regulating CO2 as a pollutant.

  22. Black Flag says:

    The Climate Change Climate Change
    The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.


    When the Economic Main Stream Media starts to parrot an opinion – it will no be long to be the song sung elsewhere.

    The Carbon tax bill will fail.

    • I sincerely hope you are correct.

    • Black Flag says:

      Politics follows the money.

      When the “Economist” magazine (and others) put a burning earth on its pages – the empty-heads of politicians jumped on the “Save the Earth” bandwagon – because the money was going there.

      Now the money is saying “Well, that turned out to be stupid” and are reversing themselves.

      Empty-head politicians will follow.

      • It is the fact that politics follow the money that worry me. If passed, this would be a huge revenue generator for the government…thus it is vital it gets passed immediately. It is the timeframe that is of concern. Even though the information of the ignorance of the whole deal is becoming more visible, the time may be too short. When the man sees those dollars, he is no different than Pavlov’s dog.

        • USWeapon says:


          Rest assured the tax revenue isn’t nearly as important to them as the “lining their own pocket” revenue. I am with BF on this one. I think my feeling is there is about a 20% chance this could get through the Senate.

        • Black Flag says:

          First, Terry, remember government doesn’t need to tax to get money.

          So its not “really” a money issue, its a control issue.

          Second, the whole AGW created a huge business ripoff opportunity of the Cap and Trade.

          Gore’s company has made a billion dollars already in carbon trades.

          That’s the money I’m talking about – elites making a killing selling pieces of paper to people so they can produce C02.

          However, the Cap-Trade program, though making a few very rich, is a flop. Nobody (except a few suckers) actually bought into it. It’s going nowhere fast.

          So there is no money there, so why would the elite punish themselves (as the larger per capita Co2 creators) if they can’t get rich on it?

          SO the backtrack – this administration is playing a game I believe.

          They don’t want it to pass (so it will fail in the Senate) BUT they don’t want to lose the support of the watermelons (green outside/red inside).

          This is a win/win.

          • USWeapon says:

            That is a very interesting theory there BF. I hadn’t thought about it being nothing more than saving face with their contributors. I will have to ponder that one a bit. I wrote a bit more about the bill passing in tonight’s post.

          • Alan F. says:

            From day 1 its been a sellable tax grab directly benefiting the Democrat benefactors. There are those who did not see it as such? I’m seriously amazed by the revelation.

          • JayDickB says:

            I love the watermelon analogy. That’s a keeper.

            The game playing part could be right. Sounds a lot like normal DC politics.

  23. Black Flag says:

    Einstein apparently said:

    “If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.”

    “One out of every three bites of food that we consume is due to the work of honeybees, serving as crucial pollinators in agriculture and farming communities.”

    Yes, I did exaggerate a bit to make a point (ya caught me! 😉 )- but 80% of plants need bees to pollinate. That size of loss plant life would make the rest of us higher order beasts rather rare.

    PS: This does only affects surface life – water and ocean life are would be fine.

  24. JudyS.NV. says:

    I just heard on the radio, that now they want to tax carbon dioxide.

    • Black Flag says:

      Let them.

      The more bizarre the politicians appear to the public, the greater the uproar.

      It took years of indulgences selling – and its bizarreness that finally triggered the revolt against the power of the Church. Luther merely went public with it – using the most innovative tool to that point in history – the printing press.

      Today’s tool – the internet – will do the same against government power.

      Let them tax carbon dioxide – and the people will, finally, have had enough.

      • JudyS.NV. says:

        So, I guess they will have to tax every living being then for giving off carbon dioxide. Going to be interesting to see how they’re going to accomplish that one.

        • USWeapon says:

          Finally the cat is going to have to start earning his keep. He has been free-loading off my wife and I for far too long.

          • JudyS.NV. says:

            Our 2 cats have been earning their keep for quite a while now. Every night they bring in their groceries, let them go, then the dog finally catches it, then spits it out, leaves it, then we have to pick it up. Talk about earning their keep.

    • Alan F. says:

      Just wait for the water reform. We’ve been hounded about watershed and sequestering by your government for decades.

  25. From the Bobo Files, had trouble with the first PDF, recommend not opening!!

    In the event of any reduced purchasing power as a result of Title VII of the Clean Air Act, provides tax credits to the lowest-income households to compensate for such losses.

    From H.R. 2454, Section 432 – Energy Refund Program for Low-income Consumers

    Directs the EPA Administrator to administer an “Energy Refund Program” to provide monthly cash energy refunds to low income individuals to compensate for any reduced purchasing power resulting from Title VII of this Act. Provides that energy refunds shall not be considered taxable income.

    And – beginning on line 18 of page 819 in the .pdf file referenced above:

    (1) Subject to standards and an implementation schedule set by the Administrator, the energy refund shall be provided in monthly installments via—
    (A) direct deposit into the eligible house hold’s designated bank account;
    (B) the State’s electronic benefit transfer 25 system; or
    (C) another Federal or State mechanism, if such a mechanism is approved by the Administrator.

    So there are several things here – 1- it only goes to low-income persons defined in the act as anyone making 150% or less of the poverty level, 2 – they ALREADY KNOW this is going to kill the economy and take money from us, and 3 – they take money directly from our pockets and DIRECT DEPOSIT it in to the bank accounts of the poor – tax free. This money is not subject to taxes as also defined in this act. As I stated in yesterday’s post – this is the biggest ponzi and wealth redistribution scheme in American history.

    • I still believe it is the money/taxing. There may be other forces in play but they all are dwarfed by the money part. The government wants nothing but dependents…

      • They also want control, they will choose your doctor and what treatments you are given. This Crap and Tax will lead to them controlling what & when you drive. they can even get to you with your home thermostat.

        I am not dismissing the tax/money side, just saying there is more to it. Look at Pelosi, does she crave the tax money to pay for her agenda, or the power to enforce her agenda? Both, its a win/win for her, and America weeps.

        And in the streets the children screamed
        The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed
        But not a word was spoken
        The church bells all were broken
        And the three men I admire most
        The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
        They caught the last train for the coast
        The day the music died

        And they were singing
        So bye-bye, Miss American Pie
        Drove my chevy to the levee
        But the levee was dry
        And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
        Singin’ this’ll be the day that I die
        This’ll be the day that I die

        Don McLean

  26. JudyS.NV. says:

    This was sent to me on my e-mail address, thought maybe you guys would be interested in it.
    Pelosi Pushes “Carbon Tax” TODAY
    To Go On Vacation
    Cap and Trade = “Carbon Tax”

    Pelosi, Waxman and the Democrats are fast-tracking Obama’s “Carbon Tax” to double your ALL your energy costs.


    Pelosi plans a House Floor Vote TODAY to raise taxes for Obama with the NEW “Carbon Tax”. She suddenly forced House committees to finish their work on the massive bill in less than 24 hours. Congressmen did not even get time to read the bill with hand written notes in the margin. Why you ask because it is time for her Summer Vacation and Pelosi and Waxman promised Obama they would push the “Carbon Tax”.

    Congress Must Know About This Bad “Carbon Tax” Bill NOW!

    Click Below to Tell Congress About the Carbon Tax Bill
    FAX All Congressmen Educate Them About Obama’s “Carbon Tax”!

    It is poor judgment and bad policy to raise taxes in difficult economic times, Congress must not pass new taxes on the American people during a recession!

    A Heritage Foundation study shows that electricity costs would go up 90% and gas prices would go up another 58%. In turn this will lead to an additional 2.47 million people losing manufacturing jobs.

    Obama Pushes Democrats To Get In Line

    Waxman and lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee met with Obama on to discuss climate change legislation. The result “We said we’re moving it this year and Obama didn’t object,” Waxman said.

    House Democrats leading the charge on President Obama’s energy bill said they expect to mark up a bill by the Memorial Day recess and have final legislation passed by the end of the year.

    Many Democrats Want Nothing To Do With BTU Tax II

    Obama’s ambitious agenda has some House Democrats are fearing a repeat of 1994, when the Clinton BTU Tax was a priority and the party lost control of both the House and the Senate.

    At a leadership meeting in the Pelosi’s Capitol conference room is has been reported that, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) argued that the House should move cautiously on a cap-and-trade bill if it doesn’t look like the Senate will approve it.

    With a lack of consensus on the varying proposals in the energy plan, Van Hollen has said the House should proceed cautiously on climate change and doesn’t want vulnerable House Democrats – especially the freshmen under his care – to be forced to take difficult votes on the measure if it’s not going to pass anyway.

    A Typical Democrat Voter Response – Is the Spin Working?

    This response it typical of what Democrats are saying: “Whatever it is…we’re against it! Grand Obstructionist Party first…screw the country (may the economy and President fail for the greater good of the GOP we pray). These people are irrelevant. Pay no attention to those nude hikers behind the bushes.” griff, seattle (Sent Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:48 PM)

    The Truth Obama’s “Carbon Tax” Plan Taxes All Americans

    It’s sneaky. The Obama “Carbon Tax” or “Green Energy Tax” is a “Regressive Cap-and-Trade” plan that taxes every single person in America. Every time anyone flips on a light switch, tax dollars are collected. The Obama “Carbon Tax” plan doubles the price of your electric bill immediately. The tax money goes straight to Obama and his Federal Government bureaucrats.

    Click Below to Tell Congress About the Carbon Tax Bill
    FAX All Congressmen Educate Them About Obama’s “Carbon Tax”!

    Obama’s “Carbon Tax” Plan Cost: $150-billion in NEW Taxes and a 10-Year Program To Develop Renewable Energy Supplies That Don’t Even Exist Yet!

    * Wind and solar combined can’t even produce 1 percent of our needs yet
    * Gas prices will be deliberately raised to make us cut back
    * Heating bills will be forced up so much we’ll be freezing in the dark
    * Ethanol schemes are already shooting food prices through the roof
    * Emission rules will be so harsh that jobs will flee to other countries

    The Great Carbon Lie – Carbon Emissions Cause Global Warming

    The basis of the Obama “Green Energy Tax” is the “Great Carbon Lie” that carbon emissions cause global warming. This has been proven to be completely wrong and based on bad science. Proof of this comes from Gore’s own eco-friends at the United Nations with two simple pieces of data.

    1. Average Global Temperatures Have Decreased in the Last 10 Years.
    2. Carbon Emissions Have Increased 10 fold in the Last 10 Years.

    Government Extortion of American Companies

    This bill is just government extortion that aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. The Obama “Caron Tax” proposal requires energy companies to buy licenses from the government in order to emit carbon while producing electricity.

    The bottom line here is that under the Obama administration’s plan money from ordinary energy consumers will be taken out of their pockets to fund big government special interest spending programs in Washington and bailouts on Wall Street. That’s why the White House put the expected revenue from its “Carbon Tax plan into the budget to pay for its spending programs.

    HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes are needed to be delivered to EACH AND EVERY Congressman right away. Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help FORCE our government to STOP the EXCUSES and Save Taxpayers Not Spend More and Raise Taxes!

    Click Below to Tell Congress About the Carbon Tax Bill
    FAX All Congressmen Educate Them About Obama’s “Carbon Tax”!

    Keep calling your Congressmen today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOUR OUTRAGE at expanding the Obama Green Energy Tax Bill!

    CALL PRESIDENT OBAMA 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your outrage at incompetence in wasting tax dollars to increase energy costs.


    NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Congressmen right away!

    Your voice can be heard – we need your urgent help at AmeriPAC.

    Even smaller donations are going to help.

    Any amount – $1000, $500, $250, or even $100 will help us fight the battle in Congress to tell Congress about the “Green Energy Tax Bill”. It’s time we stood up and said enough is enough! Please join us with your AmeriPAC donation TODAY. Thank you.

    DONATE NOW. Stop Obama’s “Carbon Tax” Increase!

    For more information, visit

    Defend America,

    Alan Gottlieb
    President and Founder

    Please make checks payable to AmeriPAC:
    American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC)
    PO Box 1682
    Dept Code 2627
    Bellevue, WA 98009-2627

    Paid for by AmeriPAC, a federally-authorized and qualified multicandidate political action committee. Contributions to AmeriPAC will be used in connection with federal elections. Maximum contribution per individual per calendar year is $5,000. Contributions from foreign nationals and corporations are prohibited. Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

  27. On my recent trip I returned up the Columbia River Gorge. Since I made the same trip last year the north side of the river, Washington State side, was lined with windmills. The very large electic generating type. The Oregon side was pretty much covered last year. Following towards Walla Walla the windmills continued for miles, outside the tri-cities.

    Now I would like to know how many folks are prepared for their entire view shed (visible landscape) to be covered by big windmills?

    Anyone driving between San Jose and San Francisco will know what it might look like as well.

    They forgot to ask everyone if they would also approve of this along with the increased cost of $65 to $6000 per year.

    Of course we know how easy it has been getting the big solar farm installed in southern Calif this past year. Two turtles trump electric needs of 1 million.

    Just thought I would add a little something to the angst.

    Hope everyone has had a nice day.

    • JudyS.NV. says:

      Hi JAC

      I know exactly what you’re talking about with wind mills between San Jose and San Francisco, we see those every time we take a trip up north. They wanted to do that here up in the hills, but every body was yelling, NOT IN MY BACKYARD. They were also thinking of putting them up around Washoe Lake area. You know where Peavine Mountain is? I’m pretty sure they were talking about that area for the wind mills. So, now, they want to raise our electric and gas rates. They’ve gone up a little, but not a whole lot yet. They even raised our water rates. If you’re on a meter like we are, it’s not too bad, just makes you aware of how much water you’re using. If you’re flat rate, you pay through the nose. They plan on making every body have a water meter so we can conserve it.The level in Lake Tahoe has gone down, and they’re trying to make sure it doesn’t go down too much. You’d think with all the snowfall we had,, the level ould have gone up.

      Hope your day is going well.


  28. The only thing I do not think I will ever understand is the why of it all.

    Almost every whacked out addlebrained idea the left has ever come up with has been proved to be false and just chock full of those “unintended consequences” and yet they persist.

    Am I so wrong with my analogy of leftists to WW I French generals in that it was not the machine gun that stopped those mass infantry charges but merely the lack of elan in the troops? With the left it is not that the bills, laws, programs didn’t work but rather that they were not given enough money/power/support? Can they never admit they are mistaken?

    • JayDickB says:

      “The only thing I do not think I will ever understand is the why of it all.”

      Two things: power and money, and money is another way of expressing power.

      Look for who gains power and money. You will find the answer there.


    I would like to change the approach to the discussion. Rather than rehash our frustrations and conclusions regarding them and what they are up to, I would like all to focus on:

    What would the VDLG party do to address the “global warming” issue?

    Your answers will help you test your committment to your core principles. Are there contradictions?

    Happy Thinking

    • Judy S. says:


      I don’t want to appear ignorant here, but what does VDLG stand for?

      Thank You


      • Very Damn Little Government.

        But before you can join you need to make sure you share the core principles of a govt that is limited to only protecting our individual freedoms. The Philosophy series will give you some idea of what this means.

        Have a great weekend my friend.
        Take the family north on 44 past Susanville to the high mountain meadows and lakes along the highway.

        If that’s too far take a little drive through Carson and follow the old foothill highway through Jacks Valley to Genoa and then on to Marklyville, CA. Hit the hot springs there before heading home.

        Live Free and Stay Happy

        • Judy S. says:

          Thanks for the info. As for our weekend, we’re going to Dayton for our oldest son’s girlfriends oldest son’s 10th birthday party. Is that confusing or what? I love going to Genoa, nice and quiet and peaceful there. Coming in either Sept. or Oct, the candy dance makes it way for a 3 day event, and we try and go there whenever we can. I Am getting in the mood for a V.C. trip, I need a new pair of moccasins and that’s the only place I get them. Besides that, I like to go to the country cupboard up there and get my jams and jellies there. They make them right there in the store and they are absolutely delicious. Sunday, is our nieces birthday, so her dad, my brother in law is throwing a bis bash for her, so we’ll probably be doing that too. Geez! I haven’t been anywhere yet, and I’m already tired.
          As for the government, I remember what Reagan said. ” Government isn’t the solution to the problem, Government is the problem “. Isn’t that the truth?

          You have a great weekend to JAC, it makes me happy that you think of me as a friend. I too consider you my friend too although we haven’t met. Maybe some day, huh.


    • Black Flag says:


      Laws against harming others with your pollution – sure. But one has to prove the harm (“no harm, no foul”).

      • JayDickB says:

        I couldn’t agree more.

        Everything I read says that, if the earth is warming (itself not proven), that is a good thing. Life has flourished on earth during warm periods and has suffered terribly during cold periods.

        Bring on the warming!

  30. Bama Dad says:

    219 to 212 passed.

  31. Judy S. says:


  32. So now with this new bill that passed, I guess we might as well hand over our paychecks in order to be able to afford living. Let’s see if I have this right. If we pay $400 a month on our gas bill for home heating in the winter, it’ll be more like $800 a month. Won’t be able to run the air conditioner anymore, won’t be able to turn on lights, use your computer, or anything that runs on electricity, because you won’t be able to use any, because you won’t be able to afford to use any. Excuse my language here, but how in the hell will anybody be able to afford this. I understand it will go up by $3000 per family, per year, am I right? What’s going to happen to the elderly who can barely make ends meet now, what are they suppose to do? Probably live in pup tents I suppose. Thank God my mother lives with us now, because she would be forced in the streets. Between her retirement check and social security check, she wouldn’t make it. I am so sick of this administration and all their spending of our money I can just scream. What the hell is wrong with them, what are they trying to prove? What about the poor who can barely make it as well? What are they going to do? What happened to all these wonderful jobs that the great Obama promised, where are they? When does this become his problem and when does he quit blaming Bush for everything? He’s really running this country in the ground, and I only hope that someday, the future generation will be able to get out from under neath it. My son said something to me yesterday, and I agree with him. He said there are a lot of people anymore who seem to be ashamed to be an American. He also said, he noticed that they have lost the pride to be Americans, and what American stands for. Nobody has the ambition they once had, they all seem to cower down and seem to have lost the fight that made America strong. He said he doesn’t see anybody that stands up and say, I’am an American and this is my country and I am damn proud of her. Instead, he sees the unhappiness on peoples faces at what’s happening to her. He said it’s terrible to see people this way, and not see things they way they used to be. This coming from a 23 year old. I guess I’m just venting here and getting my anger out. Sometimes, I just feel like bawling my eyes out because of the mess this country is in. I hope Obama is happy with what he’s doing to us. I hope to God, that the next presidential race, we get somebody in that knows what the hell they are doing. Thank you for letting me rant and rave here, sometimes it makes me feel better, just like having a good cry, I guess. Just what can we do to try and change things besides writing congress who most likely doesn’t read any of the letters, or our senators. There has got to be something besides bitch all the time at each other about what’s going on. Sometimes I feel I’m lost and don’t know where to go. Like I’m drowning and there’s nobody there to help me. I’m just so very fed up with everything. Okay, I think I’m done. If I think of anything else, I’ll be sure and put it down. Thank God for USW web site here to let you speak your mind, I so appreciate it, you don’t know how much I appreciate it, Thank you USW.

    To all, please have a wonderful weekend.
    My regards to everyone here.


  33. Ray Hawkins says:

    Did you ever know that you’re my hero?

  34. v. Holland says:

    I really don’t have enough knowledge to make a rational statement about Global warming but I would like to suggest that some of you people who do have that knowledge to go on websites like huffpost to educate the people on those sites. It’s a great way to counter what is being sold to the people.

    • Cyndi P says:


      That’s a great sentiment but the folks on the far left websites aren’t interested in being educated if it contradicts their leftist ideology. Trying to educate them them is like teaching a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig!


  35. Ray Hawkins says:

    “Ok – so teach this pig how to sing”

    I’ll offer this evening some hopefully level-headed criticism of this overall post and the prevailing sentiment of most of the USWeaponotrons herein.

    (1) I am not convinced that Global Warming / Climate Change is either non-existent as most all conservatives claim or as pervasive as the far right claims. There is ample science, lack of science, politics and drivers to support each side – missing as I pointed out earlier is objective thought un-colored by political leaning. Perhaps I am naive and am asking for something I will never get. I stand by what I said earlier – if we at least know excessive burning of fossil fuels is bad but cannot prove perhaps that global warming even exists or is sourced to fossil burning does that mean we do absolutely nothing? I’m concerned that debate is beyond the ‘we have an answer’ point – where there is scientific consensus. Blogs like this clearly show where some folks reside in that equation – I find that as disappointing as someone who believes we upend everything right now and go even further up the creek w/o a paddle.

    (2) I have a beef. So we have this 1300 page “American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009”. Okay – I don’t have a lot of time to read this – so – in need of objective analysis of the bill where do I go? This USW posting has gone to great length to source an Op Ed piece from the WSJ and a summary piece from Fox News – both of which source to the Heritage Foundation “study” or a general poo poo on the CBO report. Sorry – that doesn’t cut it folks – for all you that nodded in unison – shame on you. Should I start using Krugman and Friedman Op pieces and pass them off as fact? Would you call b.s. on me? Probably. I like Krugman and Friedman and have read both extensively – I’m not ready to pass sainthood on to them. Anyway – to show that I am try to be objective I searched and search and could not find Lieberman’s work that is used so heavily by conservatives to attack the American Clean Energy And Security Act. I found summaries and some other short snippets. When I read in the WSJ the following:

    “When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four.”

    Comprehensive? Says who? Ben Lieberman (the author)? If you can find his work, please share it with me, otherwise, please offer to me how you are able to support a contrary stance to the Clean Energy Act. FTR – I think at a high level that even this Act if far reaching to offer that it will cure Global Warming. Even existing Green legislation in the EU seems to have the jury out on net effect which I find very interesting ( For the record, I don’t consider the Taxpayer Alliance any more objective than the Heritage Foundation, the Huffington Post, the WSJ or the NYT.

    Links at Heritage where I looked but could not find the details of what everyone is pointing to as “LOOK – PROOF THAT CAP AND TRADE WILL NOT WORK”:

    If you can find the details let me know. For me – jury is still out.



%d bloggers like this: