Do As I Say, Not As I Do

In an article at Newsmax.com Al Gore was shown to be the hypocrite that I have been claiming him to be for months now.

A little investigative reporting revealed that Al Gore's home used as much electricity as a small Southern town. And what is worse is that after he made it "greener" his energy consumption jumped over 10%!

In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former vice president’s home energy use surged more than 10 percent, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month....

DID YOU READ THAT?!!? Al Gore's main residence - not all of his residences together, just ONE house - uses enough electricity to power 232 average American households. 232! And I am supposed to take this boob seriously when he tells me to cut my carbon emissions? It is just like I wrote in an earlier article:

Here's the way the Socialist/Elitist/Liberal mind works: the sacrifices are for the little people to make, but the big, important people deserve these perks because of all the pressures they are under making sure the proles toe the line. Do you think that any of the world leaders supporting this fallacy are riding around in electric cars or taking a bike or, God-forbid a subway instead? No. Do you think they will suddenly change if they manage to get these stupid treaties passed? Don't be stupid.

They are now and always will be riding around in the biggest gas-guzzler that they can get their hands on.

My proof? Al Gore. "Captain Planet" is jetting around the world (emitting tons of carbon in the process) so that he can emit tons of hot air. This jet-setting is presumably to save us from global catastrophe. One problem - you could use the electric meter on his house for a fan! And would he have done anything about it? No, if the Tennessee Center for Policy Research hadn't exposed his hypocrisy he would have still been chugging along. However, looking like a hypocrite (even if you are one) is bad for credibility. So...

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

What the hell is he doing in this house, enriching uranium? How is it possible for one house to use enough electricity to power Woodleaf, NC? Here is the truth once again - the real reasons that Al Gore is so "concerned" about the environment:

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

For Al this is all about stroking his bruised ego and lining his pockets.

I'll leave you with these words:

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

I couldn't agree more. If you are interested in reading other rants about this "global warming" crock you can click on the "Climate Change" and "Al Gore" labels towards the bottom of the side panel.

Calling The Low Down Varmint Out...

A voice of reason has appeared from an unexpected place. Czech President Vaclav Klaus has challenged alleged global warming 'expert' Al Gore to a debate about global warming. Not surprisingly, Gore isn't willing to intelligently discuss the evidence for or against global climate change or its possible causes. (Perhaps he is unable to do so?)

Klaus said, "It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda." Ahh, Joseph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler would be so proud!

The Czech President has recently written a book that questions the true motive of the climate change propagandists titled, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? Klaus says that the thing most endangered is basic human freedoms and prosperity.

Klaus compares the tactics and aims of the environmental alarmists to the tactics used by the communists in his country during his lifetime.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said. "In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added. Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change....

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming. "It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.

Sound familiar? It is basically the same thing said by the founder of the Weather Channel months ago.

I have said many times (even in the midst of last summer's blistering heat) that I do not believe that any permanent global warming is taking place. I believe that any heating trends can be more easily explained by solar radiation patterns than by carbon emissions. This seems evident to me from a comparison of the amount of "greenhouse gas" emitted into the atmosphere by humans as compared to that given off by nature itself. A single volcanic eruption contains many times more "greenhouse gas" than all of mankind's pollution combined. Thus, you will have a hard time convincing me that any warming (or cooling) trends are being caused by man's usage of carbon.

But lets suppose, just for the sake of argument, that these Chicken Littles were right. Let's consider how life would be if the environazis got their way and took us back to the Stone Age. Even then it would seem that there isn't any feasible way for humans to avoid carbon-based environmental impact. Humans need heat to survive. Anything below 98° F and we start needing some supplemental heat. And there are precious few places on planet earth that are 98° F night and day year round. (Thank God!)

Clothing can allow us to take that number down much lower, but manufacturing clothing in a modern society requires machinery, machinery requires electricity, and the most common source of electricity is combustion. Of course we could go back to using animal skins for clothing, but the environmentalists won't like that either.

There is also the problem of cooking food. Even vegetarians typically cook their food. And if we were to use animal skins for clothing, wouldn't it be wasteful to kill an animal just for its skin? (Seems like I have heard that argument somewhere before....) Thus, if you are going to eat yon mastodon, you'd best have a way cook it. Once again, combustion is going to be required.

Then there's the problem of shelter. Last time I checked there weren't that many habitable caves in the North Carolina Piedmont. That means we are going to have to figure out some place to stay. Well, we can go back to animal skins. (I can hear the animal rights folk howling even now....) There is also lots of nice red mud around here, but to make mud into brick requires baking it - more carbon. We could cut down trees to make cabins, but that reduces the number of trees which help to remove the carbon from the air. It would seem in our environmental Utopia that shelter may be a problem.

There is another problem that we have learned about too: animal flatulence. All those cows are farting the place up and pushing us towards global catastrophe. I guess it is good that all those cowboys nearly wiped out the bison herds back at the turn of the century. Millions of gassy buffalo would have probably pushed us over the edge.

I suppose that many who have read my rants against global warming might assume that I don't care about the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I care very much about it. My problem with most environmental issues is that they tend to tilt at windmills.

The issue of global warming is a hoax. It isn't an issue, but is something that is being greedily exploited to further other ends. Al Gore is exploiting "global warming" to put himself in the limelight and assuage his wounded ego after being rejected by the American people. He also, by the way, is exploiting it to make himself filthy, stinking rich through his investments in these "green" companies.

Politicians are exploiting it to line their pockets with bribes from companies that will benefit from new regulations and from those that would be hurt by new regulations. They are also using "global warming" to line their pockets with revenue from bogus carbon offset programs. And of course, let us not forget that it gives them a leverage point to obtain power over the people, exploiting this lie to induce people to give up their freedoms and prosperity.

Finally, environmentalists are exploiting "global warming" to make some marginal gains toward their agendas, and "scientists" are exploiting it to bilk grant money from various governments. These reasons are why I so vigorously oppose "global warming."

There are plenty of legitimate environmental concerns with real-world practical solutions. Pollution is a huge problem. It is clear that air quality has suffered as our cities have grown. Some progress has been made at reducing automobile emissions, but why don't we push on and see if we can't break away from petroleum and find a cleaner alternative? It will take some time, but if we can put a hunk of metal on Mars we should be able to collectively figure out a way to tell the gas companies bye-bye.

Why do we allow companies to dump their waste into our rivers? We should use the same policy with manufacturers worldwide that Momma did: "If you make the mess clean it up." Companies should have to have waste mitigation plans before they are allowed to manufacture the first widget. Would it be more expensive? Yes, it would. But I'd be willing to bet that manufacturers would find a better way to do it if they were forced to. Once they had discovered that way I'd be willing to bet that the prices could come down. (Whether they would or not is a different rant for a different post!) But what about the countries that wouldn't adhere to that standard?!! Don't trade with them. DUH!

Or perhaps on a more personal level, why do we allow people to litter? (This includes throwing cigarette butts out of cars, by the way.)

Why do we allow companies to use packaging materials that are not environmentally friendly? Why are we so addicted to plastics when glass, paper, and metal are much more easily recycled?

There are also water quality issues that are being raised by the irresponsible development taking place throughout the country. In North Carolina these practices threaten to destroy the state's only native trout. (Indeed, Brook Trout are threatened throughout their native range along the entire Appalachian Range from Georgia to Maine.)

All of these issues would be much easier to fix than "global warming." (Especially if it turns out that this purported climate change is being caused by the sun!)

North Carolina's Wildlife Commission has done a stellar job in reclaiming severely damaged river ecosystems. With the work that they have done they have begun to see very encouraging results in the resurgence of threatened flora and fauna. Their re-introduction of deer and turkeys have been wildly successful, and I have hope for the successful reintroduction of the red wolf and elk. It would be wonderful to see these animals thriving in our land again. (Although they will create their own problems too as we have seen with the invasion of coyotes.) I have also seen surprisingly quick results from the size and creel limits imposed on many saltwater fish species. There seem to be far more fish available in just a few short years following the introduction of these limits.

My point is that the real environmental problems facing our world can be dealt with successfully when they are approached with intelligence and TRUE scientific inquiry instead of the junk being passed off as science by so many. There are plenty of resources in our world to allow us to take advantage of them if we will be wise about it and not succumb to greed. It is high time that we start using our own brains and questioning why so many "scientists" are afraid of debate on issues like climate change and evolution. It is time that we stop giving these people money to perpetuate their lies. We cannot keep accepting that what "they" say is true. Too often it isn't. The money that will be wasted on "preventing" global warming would be much better used addressing real problems.

But What About The Polar Ice Caps?

So I read this brilliant article today about the polar ice caps. Turns out that they didn't move out permanently - they just went on vacation.

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

Call me smug. Call Gore a liar. AND QUIT INTERFERING WITH MY LIFE AND WASTING MY MONEY WITH YOUR STUPID LEGALIZED EXTORTION SAVE THE WORLD SCHEMES! There is one thing and one thing only that is going to bring about the end of the world: man's sin. PERIOD. Man's sin has created the whole mess.

Every time I turn around there is some new scam being perpetrated on the American people. "Ohmygosh! We're going to burn ourselves up! Global warming! Global warming! Let's make ethanol to save ourselves from ourselves!" "Ohcrap! That made the price of corn go up - and it didn't reduce greenhouse emissions in the first place! (And the oil companies are threatening to take away all that money they give me if I keep pushing this ethanol stuff.)"

I even heard a group of scientists the other day that are ready to suggest that it is actually another Ice Age that we need to fear. Good grief!

I am so utterly sick of the corruption and the lies. They aren't even believable lies anymore. Back in the 70s they told us that we were running out of oil - said that we'd be out by the late 70s or early 80s. Guess what? We still have oil. In fact, every week I keep hearing reports of some huge new oilfield that has been discovered that I should invest in.

There is one reason and one reason only to develop bio-fuels: to provide an alternative to the oil companies' and commodity traders' greed. I firmly believe that the international community's about-face on ethanol has far less to do with corn-driven inflation and far more to do with threats to these spokespeople from the oil industry. Big oil doesn't want any other players on the field, and the politicians don't want to lose that Sugar Daddy. It would be awful hard for Exxon to post those record profits if demand drops by 85%. Yes, I am just cynical enough to believe that. It isn't even a stretch for me.

If I had the money, I'd hire a top-notch team of the brightest, most-creative engineers, chemists, and designers that I could assemble right out of college and I would set them to developing a feasible, cost-effective means of transportation that did not rely on oil for propulsion at all.

While we developed that, I'd have teams of folks scouring the US Patents' Office for any devices created to increase fuel efficiency in petroleum-powered vehicles. I'd set my "Skunk-works" team to improving the ideas that they find and then we'd produce and market those technologies.

I simply don't believe that we have achieved the pinnacle of fuel-efficiency and power that technology can afford. Do I know what I am talking about? No! But neither did Henry Ford. He simply didn't believe his engineers when they told him it was impossible to make an 8-cylinder engine work. Guess who ended up being right? Would it be easy? DUH-HUH! Nothing is EVER easy. I have learned that one the hard way. But then I have digressed, haven't I?

So anyway, the article pointed out just how far it would seem that we are from global warming with the ice caps growing, Chinese houses collapsing under the snow, and young cows dying in Vietnam from the cold weather. If you are interested in more, there was an interesting article published by the Daily Mail that is mocking Gore over this stuff too. Seems like I remember that the Weather Channel guy said that it would turn out like this months ago. If he isn't already mocking the global warming crowd, he should be. I know that I am.

Stop the Stupidity!

I found this new career opportunity online today. Global Warming is going to make Y2K look like a legitimate threat! If you think that you got fleeced for Y2K you ain't seen nothing yet!

If you want to wallow sideways in the public trough here is the perfect opportunity for you. (What do you think Al Gore is doing? I'll bet he is beating these salary levels too.):

Carbon coach
Reducing contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, or the carbon footprint, is one huge step toward sustainability, but few guidelines exist for how companies gunning to be green should proceed. Carbon coaches offer this essential information. In addition to calculating carbon footprints and offering advice for offsetting them, carbon coaches help companies fit sustainability into their overall mission. Their services range from providing branding strategy for "green" product launches to advising companies on their relationships with NGOs....

Few guidelines exist, indeed. In fact I read an article today about how the UN is now saying that bio-fuels will cause more trouble than they will mitigate, but I will get to that in a moment. Back to the article at hand.

Most carbon coaches work at consulting firms, where they command salaries ranging from $40,000 to $60,000 for entry-level positions and $60,000 to $100,000 for mid-level positions.

Sadly, folks working for not-for-profit companies aren't going to make that much. "Non-profit organization salaries aren't as high; an entry-level carbon coach with a master's degree can expect a salary of $30,000 to $50,000." Well, it's for the children, though, right? Just like John Edwards' compassionate legal work for all of those poor children, right? It WAS for them, wasn't it? But then why did he take HALF of the rewards in legal fees? But I digress...

In another "What the crap?..." story, check out this headline from across the pond:

A British bus company has apologized to a girl who is led around on a leash by her boyfriend and describes herself as a human pet after one of its drivers threw her off a bus. Tasha Maltby, 19, told British newspapers she was the "pet" of her 25-year-old fiancé Dani Graves….

WHAT?!!! Yes, I read that right.

Maltby -- who lives on state benefits and got engaged in November -- said her choice of lifestyle might seem unusual but was harmless.

"I am a pet," she told the Daily Mail. "I generally act animal-like and I lead a really easy life. I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."

Well, can't say that I could see that happening here... the very suggestion that a woman wear a leash would end up sending a fellow to the dentist for a new set of teeth with most of the women I know. People are weird.

So back to the UN article I was talking about earlier. I find it hilarious (in an infuriating sort of way) that the UN is backpedaling on its claim that bio-fuel will be the great messiah of our poor, little, carbon-polluted world.

...Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries. However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls — many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.

...Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.

Is anyone besides me not surprised that no one stopped to think about the possible negative effects of this policy? Politicians never do. Just like the stupid bill that was passed by the geniuses in Washington that outlawed incandescent light bulbs - while favoring fluorescent bulbs that contain heavy metals and other serious toxins. I stopped needing someone to wipe my nose about 34 years ago, thank you very much.

Here's a shock for you: I am totally in favor of the development of alternative / renewable fuel sources. I suspect that I just surprised some of my more loyal readers with that statement. Why am I in favor of the development of alternative fuels and new technologies? Do you think that it is because I am concerned one iota about global warming? NOT A CHANCE.

The reason that I support bio-fuel development is because (based on my own reading) it looks like a relatively small farm could produce enough ethanol to allow a family to cut its dependence on oil severely if not completely. I am sick of the oil companies and commodity traders and the local gas stations charging as much for their product as they can without starting a riot.

They know that there is no competition for their product. They have a captive market. Americans can't just stop driving cars. The public transportation infrastructure does not exist on a large scale and the structure of our communities is not conducive to public transportation. Big oil knows that they have us between a rock and a hard place. The development of bio-fuel technology gives me the chance to produce my own fuel and stick it to the man. Viva la revolucion!

Anyway, this new "concern" by the UN is a big smoke screen in my opinion. They are already looking for a graceful way to escape the corner they have put themselves in by buying into the Chicken Littles' dire predictions and drinking the loonies' Kool Aid. See, it will cost all of the big wheels in the UN too much profit if petroleum goes away. They can't have that, but in the meantime they will line their pockets with ummm, spend waste trillions of dollars (yes, Virginia, that is trillion with a "t") until everyone figures out that the sun still keeps coming up in the morning and realizes that all this climate change is a bunch of hooey. (Then they'll blame Al Gore for it all, but he'll shift the blame to President Bush somehow.)

Come QUICKLY, Lord Jesus!

Then Tell Me Why I Haven't Been Warm All Day Long...

"Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday."

What a boob.

The Age Of Fantasy

I saw a headline over the weekend that nearly sent me through the roof:

Global Warming's Trillion Dollar Debate

TRILLION DOLLAR DEBATE?!!!!! I can feel my blood pressure getting up already.

The subtitle read, "UN scientists say climate change is happening faster than thought as politicians head to Bali to hammer out Kyoto's successor."

This is wrong on so many levels it is just hard to know where to start.

Let me remind you of the words of the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, that I shared HERE last week:

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend. (emphasis mine)

"Global warming" "man-made climate change" or whatever alarmist title you want to put on it is an utter, total, and complete sham.

First of all to use "global warming" and "debate" in the same sentence requires some fairly restrictive rules. It is OK to talk about the debate between gullible junk scientists about how long it will take for "global warming" to destroy all life on the planet. However, you cannot use "global warming" in conjunction with "debate" in a way that would indicate any meaningful dialog between scientists who support the fantasy of global warming and those scientists whose research indicates that the aforementioned scientists are full of beans. For example, you can say "Scientists who believe in global warming are afraid of scientific debate on the subject." But you couldn't legitimately say, "The facts of global warming have reached scientific consensus through the application of scientific method and open scientific debate."

Let it suffice for this portion of the rant to say that no consensus has been reached in the scientific community about catastrophic climate change as a result of application of the scientific method and scientific debate based on the data collected via objective observation. That's the truth no matter what Comrade Gore says. (I don't care if he DID invent the internet!) What a jerk.

OK, so I managed to look over this article (by liberal CNN) and see that the whole article is about an urgent reworking of the Kyoto treaty that the US never ratified. They're trying to make it even MORE restrictive.

Kyoto, the far-reaching agreement reached in 1997 intended to reduce global carbon emissions, is nothing compared to what could be coming next as the world's governments confront the ecological damage from global warming and debate what needs to be done to fix it.

I love it when journalists lie right off the bat, don't you? While many nations did buy into all of this nonsense, the US did not - of course the writer of this article didn't make it sound that way, did he? (He did, MUCH later in the article, acknowledge that President Bush wouldn't ratify the treaty.)

The fourth and final UN report on climate change, due Saturday, is expected to emphasize that the warming of the planet is "unequivocal" and that humans are the main cause. That report will act as a blueprint for the next crucial round of climate talks starting next month in Bali, Indonesia.

Thank God, it is the LAST report. We couldn't handle any more misinformation.

Scientists say up to an 85 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions is needed to head off potential catastrophic changes that could lead to more floods and famine. How to best achieve those cuts is where the fight begins. (emphases mine)

Is it just me, or are these "scientists" being mighty vague? Even they don't have the gall to boldfaced lie! They are even hedging their words here so that when Mr. Coleman's prophecy comes to pass they will be able to back out of it and try to salvage a modicum of credibility. Weenies!

The Bush administration has so far resisted mandatory caps, and all eyes will be watching to see if White House negotiators hold up the Bali talks.

THANK GOD!!! I'm glad someone is finally giving President Bush credit for doing something smart. Oh wait, this guy (and apparently the rest of the world) blames President Bush for blocking the caps that will save us all from ourselves. History will vindicate him on this one. "Global warming" is the new "acid rain."

Our intrepid reporter goes on to say:

Previous versions of the report, written in the 1990s, said global warming was likely happening and likely caused by humans but acknowledged that the science was not yet certain. The latest report, released in three parts over the course of this year, took away practically all that uncertainty.

Written by over 2,500 top government-appointed scientists from around the world, the fourth report is a user-friendly version that will be used by politicians and bureaucrats as a blueprint during negotiations next month in Bali and beyond.

"Gawrsh, Mickey! It MUST be true then."

Reality check (with much thanks again to John Coleman):

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way. (Don't pretend they don't. JDE)

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside. (Isn't this what Al Gore has done? JDE)

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. (Remember that? I'm still bummed that didn't happen... JDE) In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science. (all emphases and asides mine)

The thing that really makes me mad is that this "scam" based on "bad science" is going to cost TRILLIONS of dollars. Let that word trill off your tongue. It incenses me that bureaucrats and politicians throw numbers like this around so carelessly about an utter prevarication.

Let me put this all in perspective. Let's consider just how much money is being wasted on this post-digestive male bovine silage. According to Compassion International it is possible to feed clothe and educate a child on $32 a month. That would be $384 a year and $6912 to raise a child from birth to age 18. If only 1 trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) were wasted - and it will be FAR more - on global warming you could have fed, clothed and educated one hundred forty-four million, six hundred seventy-five thousand, nine hundred twenty six (144,675,926) children from birth until their 19th birthday. God will hold these liars accountable for their malfeasance.

Ever wonder why Al Gore has been such a crusader? According to THIS article, he has a vested interest in the global warming lie. Apparently, there is big money in global catastrophe.

Perhaps you wonder how I, with no Ph.D. in anything - a former English major, can be so confident that global warming is a hoax. I am certain it is a hoax because I know what the Bible says about mankind's (and the world's) end. If the increased temperatures shown in the data used by global warming's champions are to result in mankind's demise then there is nothing that can be done to avert disaster, and we might as well enjoy the air conditioning, warm heat, and fast cars that carbon-based energy has gotten us.

Once, back when Western Civilization's underpinnings were still Christian, mankind made huge strides in science and thought and the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment were born. Now our atheistic scientists have sacrificed scientific method and objectivity on the altars of Darwinism, greed, and vanity, giving birth to the Age of Fantasy.

I think Steve Graham over at Hog On Ice said it best:

It just occurred to me: isn't Al Gore's idiotic theory the epitome of God-denying humanism? The ancients realized that the weather was something man could not control, so they appeased their heathen gods as well as the actual, correct God. Now a certain segment of society thinks God is unfashionable. So they're looking for a way to turn man into the shaper of storms and droughts. Man, who can barely program his clock radio...

Is It True?

A gentleman in the office where I work made an assertion yesterday that I found just shocking. He said, "It doesn't make any sense getting upset about politics. One day you'll realize that regardless of who is in office it isn't going to make a difference in your day to day life...."

I guess I am just too much of a romantic to believe that that statement is true. Perhaps I am too much of a realist too. I remember the Jimmy Carter days and even as a young child I knew that things weren't that great in our country. I have been told about gas lines and runaway inflation and outrageous interest rates. I also remember that during the Reagan years things got progressively better. So, fundamentally I just have to disagree with my co-worker's statement.

Perhaps once upon a time there was a period where it didn't matter so much who was in office. That time certainly isn't now. Let us consider the things that the Democrats stand for.

First of all, the Democrats largely favor gun control laws. If you don't believe it, look to Congress and see which party has proposed the lion's share of legislation regarding gun control. Look at the majority of people who voted for those bills. Look at the states whose gun control laws are the most restrictive - they are states that vote traditionally Democrat.

Secondly, Democrats favor tax increases. This seems to be a mantra of all Democrats. Of course, when Republicans want to lower taxes, Democrats moan that the tax cuts aren't fair: that they are only lowering taxes for a very small portion of the people. Oddly enough, when the Democrats are in power, they never lower anyone's taxes. Funny how it works that way.

Democrats are also in favor of big government. They believe that the government is better than anyone at anything. They can raise your kids better than you can. They can prepare for your retirement better than you can. They can spend your money better than you can. They can protect you better than you can.

The Democrats love to pretend that they are great champions of the little man too. However, is this self-testimonial true? Hardly. Democrats favor policies that keep the "little man" down. How many people have been set free or improved by the welfare system? Few if any. What does affirmative action tell a minority? If I were to receive a job or a position because of affirmative action I wouldn't feel like I had earned it. It basically tells minorities that they aren't good enough to make it on their own merit; they need a crutch. How about taxes? Who do taxes hurt the most? That's right. The little guy. And we know how often the Democrats lower taxes.

Another problem with the Democrats is their seeming enamoredness with the United Nations. The Democrats have bowed to the UN way too many times. Bill Clinton was willing to bring the United States under the jurisdiction of an international court. The rallying cry of the Democrats since the escalation toward hostilities in Iraq has been, “We need a UN resolution!” The UN is an evil organization that seeks to undermine the sovereignty of every nation on this earth. They make American politics and politicians look like worshipers at a church picnic. Anybody who would support the UN’s agenda is a borderline traitor if not a full blown one.

One of the things that I hate most about so many members of the Democratic Party is their overarching self-absorption. Democrats will do absolutely anything to benefit themselves. For instance, Bill Clinton accepted money from China for his campaigns. (Oddly, about the same time he relaxed trade restrictions that allowed China access to technology that gave them the ability to deliver long-range nuclear weapons – technology that China has sold throughout the world to our detriment.) John Kerry changes his mind about his position on everything depending on whom he is talking to. Al Gore called for how many recounts of the Florida ballots in the 2000 election? John Edwards uses his first term in the Senate to campaign for the Presidency. The list goes on and on and on.

However, the most offensive thing about the Democratic Party is its complete disregard for morality. Democrats support abortion on demand. They support partial birth abortion. They favor euthanasia. They oppose the protection of the family and the traditional definitions of marriage and family. And they lie with satanic ease. These things are absolutely unacceptable, and in and of themselves would be reason enough to not elect them.

You will never convince me that it doesn’t matter who is in charge of our country. If the governance of our country were left to the “superstars” of the Democratic Party, I would hate to see what would happen. I am sure that it would be ugly. I know that it is considered “old fashioned” to refer to the Bible about these sorts of things, but I don’t care. The Bible makes it very clear that the person (or people) who is in charge of a country DIRECTLY affects the destiny of the country. The ruler sets the tone for the society. Under David, Nehemiah, Hezekiah, and Josiah the nation of Israel thrived and was safe from its enemies, but the evil of Jeroboam, Ahab, Jezebel, and Ahaz brought death, destruction, and exile to Israel and Judah. The same thing will happen here if we don’t stand for what is right.

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
- Edmund Burke 1729-1797

My "O" Award Of the Day Goes To...

Dan Rather of CBS News.

The US-led Coalition governors turned over sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government today 48 hours ahead of schedule.

I find it amusing how so many of the mainline media outlets assured us that we wouldn't be ready to turn over sovereignty by the 30th. Surprise! We did it 2 days early!

Therefore, today's "O" Award goes to Dan Rather who demonstrated his ability as a spin-doctor on this morning's news. Against staggering odds he was able to take a major success in the Iraqi campaign and turn it into an opportunity to cause people to view this achievement in a negative light. Instead of praising the President and the coalition for keeping their word and handing over control of Iraq's government he (with a look of "sincere concern" upon his face) commenced the hand wringing. "Oh my! They turned over sovereignty early! They must have been afraid that there would be problems!" Not content to simply question the readiness of the Iraqi government's ability to govern its people, Mr. Rather continued by insinuating that the move was not sincere and that Mr. Allawi is merely a puppet of the Americans.

Dan, is that the most subtlety you can manage? That was about as slick as Al Gore posing as Ronald Reagan in the Presidential debates with George Bush.

President Bush might just be the coolest President that we have ever had. Just think of all the terrorist plans that this surprise move disrupted. I bet Dubya got a good belly laugh over that one too. It is kind of like getting invited to a black tie party, but being told that it is a masquerade. I am sure that there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over that one in the enemy's camp!

Think what you like, lefties, President Bush is ALOT sharper than you have given him credit for. You guys also might want to consider that the President is doing something else that probably chafes you pretty well: he has once again done what he said that he would do.

Now, as for the intelligence of the American people as a whole, the jury is still out. I guess the truth will be seen in whether they can see through liars like Dan Rather and Michael Moore.

Mad As A March Hare

Al Gore has been busy proving that there is a God and that He must still love America (at least a little bit.)

Most failed Presidential hopefuls fade off into the sunset, causing very little stir politically ever again. In fact, alot of times we find that we actually like them better once they aren't in politics anymore. Take for example former Senator Bob Dole (whose wife is currently serving as my Senator.) While he was in office and during his campaign for President, Bob was a cranky-looking fellow who didn't look like he could be trusted to pet kittens, let alone run the country. Later, we figured out what the problem had been when he started doing ads for Viagra! Ever since then, Bob has been in a rather jovial mood. I dare say he'd stand a pretty good chance if he ever decided to go for office again.

Al Gore has been completely different. He has refused to go away, consigned to the fact that his political career is OVER. I think that the man has lost his mind. No, SERIOUSLY! I'm not talking about the garden variety "you're out of your mind" sort of crazy that you assign to people with whom you disagree, but about the kind where you should be locked away in the padded room because you are a danger to yourself and others. Steve H. wrote a hilarious blog post on Friday where he discussed a speech that Gore made describing President Bush and his supporters as "Brown Shirts." I think my favorite was a comment that defended Gore's actions, saying that he was getting ready for his new career as a WWF wrestler!

It is pretty amazing looking back at the progression that Al has taken since losing the election. He was already acting unstable during the campaign. Like Steve I remember being outraged that Gore would actually go so far as to imitate President Reagan to try to win the election. That was pretty scary. Then there was the recount fiasco in Florida. President Bush calmly went back to his ranch in Texas, while Al Gore worked himself into a froth refusing to accept that after 6 recounts the result was still going to be the same. (Thank God the Supreme Court finally stepped in and said enough is enough.) Since then Al has become more and more venomous in his attacks on the President and more and more unhinged. His past two speeches have made the Howard Dean screech seem tame by comparison.

What I want to know is who actually goes and listens to someone who has clearly lost his grip on reality? Are they going for the carnival effect of seeing a freak in action, or even scarier, do they actually think that he is making sense? It is telling that even the Democratic Party is beginning to distance itself from this fruitcake. Can you blame them? I'm guessing that the next election he'll be running in place of Ralph Nader, but that is just a guess. Ralph may not be willing to step aside.

All I can say is that I thank God that Looney Al wasn't in office when we were attacked on 9/11/01. I can't even imagine what he would have done, but I am quite sure that he wasn't competent to run this country. So, Virginia, if you need proof that there is a God, just look to the results of the 2000 election!