Spy and Surveillance Equipment, Hidden Cameras, Nanny Cams

The ruling parties brilliant leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly stated that Cap and Trade will be a priority for the 111th Congress. This idiocy was embraced some years ago in Europe and a few other countries. What cap and trade does is create an artificial market for various industries to buy, sell, and trade allowances (? yeah allowances) that permit a certain amount of carbon output. This thing has long been on the wish list for American liberals and extremist environmentalists (read authentic wackos). And with Democrats now in control of Congress and the White House, you can bet they will soon engage in an all out effort to enact cap and trade. In fact, in the 2010 White House budget, President Barack Obama calls for a sweeping cap and trade program that would raise $646 billion in new revenues (read brand new tax on Americans). In an aside to that lets look at what has worked in the past to increase Federal revenue, Tax increases have invariably resulted in eventual lower governmental revenue since they stifle initiative and entrepreneurship that would have increased employment and through that more tax money coming in. Let’s just remember tax increases have always resulted in less government revenue. Lowering the tax burden on the citizens has always resulted in more governmental income since it allows “us” to use more of our money to purchase more of the goods and services we need. Through that entrepreneurship flourishes employment goes up and thus more taxpayers to send money to Washington. Let’s just remember tax cuts have worked every time they have been tried.
Now here’s a few reasons why Cap and Trade is only for the ignorant borrowed from Freedom Works dot org:
1. It will raise energy costs: While different nuanced approaches continue to surface, any analysis of any cap and trade scheme comes to the same conclusion; energy costs will go up. The latest serious attempt to enact cap and trade in the United States, America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), serves as a good example. An analysis of this legislation cited during a Senate hearing held by the Committee on Environment and Public Works estimated the costs (an estimate that’s sure as hell conservative) to the average American household would be between $800 and $1,300 by 2015, and then increasing to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.

2. It doesn’t help the environment: If energy costs are going to go up for Americans, shouldn’t there be significant environmental benefit and progress towards reversing (if you believe it really exists) climate change? You would think so. But even if the most aggressive of cap and trade schemes were properly adhered to, scientists that both advocate and oppose a cap and trade program widely agree that the maximum drop to the earth’s temperature would be no more than 0.07 degrees Celsius by the year 2050 (if any). To give some sense of just how negligible this decrease would be, we cannot even estimate the absolute mean surface temperature of the earth within 0.07 at any time past, present or future, there simply is no way to do that at least until the 24th century and then Spock can do it. What’s worse is that cap and trade actually provides incentives to emit more carbon, not less. An article by the Christian Science Monitor explains: “By turning carbon emissions into commodities that can be bought and sold, cap-and-trade policies could remove the stigma from producing such emissions.” In other words, if industries understand they are working within a legal framework when they output carbon, the public pressure for them to cut down is weakened. Evidence of this can be seen in Europe where most countries have seen carbon emissions go up, even though the European Union has had a cap and trade regime in place since 2005.

3. It doesn’t work where it has been tried: Speaking of Europe, let’s take a closer look at how cap and trade is fairing. As mentioned earlier, the EU is watching carbon emission levels rise despite the fact that they have had a cap and trade system since 2005. Furthermore, the Heartland Institute reports that 12 of the 15 EU nations taking part in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a program that sets greenhouse gas reduction targets and serves as a precursor to cap and trade, are failing to meet their reduction targets, with three going over by more than 10 percent and another three going over by more than 20 percent. In fact, emissions for all EU countries went up on average 2.1 percent between 2000 and 2004. Compare this with the United States where currently no such regulatory regime exists and yet emissions went up only 1.3 percent during the same time period. Nonetheless, President Obama has announced an aggressive set of targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promising to “work expeditiously with key stakeholders and the Congress to develop an economy-wide emissions reduction program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.”

4. It will cost Americans jobs: This calculation is a pretty simple one. For U.S. industry to comply with a cap and trade scheme, they have to reduce their carbon emissions. There are two ways to do this: (1) produce less – this obviously hurts jobs as companies would seek to streamline their workforce to compensate for a drop in production, or (2) buy carbon allowances in order to keep production up – this, too, would threaten jobs as companies would be forced to devote more internal resources to allowances, negatively effecting their bottom lines and potentially putting workers on the chopping block. In either case, the rising costs of energy under a cap and trade system, as mentioned earlier, only add to the problem. An analysis conducted by Charles River Associates in 2007 estimated anywhere from 1.2 million to 2.3 million jobs would be lost under a cap and trade scheme.

5. It is in effect a hidden regressive tax: We’ve talked about how cap and trade causes energy prices to go up. That doesn’t just hit American industry, but American consumers as well. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) correctly notes that as these prices go up in the form of higher gasoline, heating oil, and electricity, the poor are hit hardest with what is in effect a hidden regressive tax. President Obama promises to return revenues to vulnerable communities, families and businesses, but that leaves taxpayers at the whim of government to redistribute income rather than letting taxpayer keep their hard earned dollars.

6. It sets a dangerous precedent: While extremist environmentalists and their liberal allies have been whining about climate change for years, most stop short of declaring cap and trade the silver-bullet solution. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council are generally supportive of the concept of cap and trade. However, as The Heritage Foundation has pointed out, these groups have found fault with actual proposals such as America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, criticizing them for not going far enough and willing only to endorse them as “a good first step.” As much damage as a cap and trade scheme would cause in its own right, this posture by extreme environmental groups foreshadows even more draconian regulations in our future. Yes that’s right they will never be satisfied until we (you and I) have no money, no car, no home and no way to get them. Sorry if I sound alarmist but I believe we simply cannot give ourselves over these nuts because they have demonstrated they have no regard for real people, they believe WE ARE THE PROBLEM

7. It prevents market forces from working for the environment: The market distortions imposed by a cap and trade system would be significant. Recently, major energy companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in technologies that capture and store carbon as well as lower carbon alternative energy sources. A cap and trade system however, sets up perverse incentives that will distract these and other companies from market-based solutions to curb carbon output. Resources instead will be funneled to the artificial market for carbon allowances that cap and trade sets up.

8. It threatens to put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with other countries: Though the E.U. and the United States may be buying into cap and trade, industrial giants like China and India are not. Remember the lost jobs we talked about in point #4? In addition to China and India, nearby Mexico (another country where cap and trade is not even a remote possibility) are more than willing to pick up the U.S. slack and bolster their already robust manufacturing sectors.

9. It opens the door to massive fraud and corruption: As energy companies look to game the system, cap and trade would open the door wide for fraud and corruption that could devastate U.S. investors and the economy as a whole. This has been seen already in the UK, a country currently participating in cap and trade. In a recent article by the British-based Guardian newspaper they report: “Britain’s biggest polluting companies are abusing a European emissions trading scheme (ETS) designed to tackle global warming by cashing in their carbon credits in order to bolster ailing balance sheets.” In the United States we have seen what happens when companies engage in creative accounting measures to hide losses and the staggering domino effect it can have on Wall Street investors and the larger economy. If you need more proof of this threat, look no further than this report by The Competitive Enterprise Institute that discusses Enron’s support for a cap and trade scheme that would allow them to dominate this new, made-up market for carbon.

10. It threatens to bust the federal budget at a time when the United States can scarcely afford it: Federal spending continues at a breakneck pace. The recent passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill along with even more taxpayer funded bailouts looming on the horizon add to U.S. budget woes and sink us deeper into recession. And as if times weren’t tough enough, the CBO reports that cap and trade would heap additional undue pressure on our fragile budget. According to their report, government would face the same challenges with higher energy costs that consumers do. Additionally, the fall in production for U.S. industry would lead to a loss of federal government tax revenues. Further increasing spending while decreasing revenues makes cap and trade a tough sell in the current economic climate.
Okay that’s their take but it really looks to Poppajohn that the current rulers of America are deliberately trying to break her. Their actions make no sense unless viewed in that light. Oh happy day.
How about a special to brighten things up!! Let’s go with the newest taser for citizenry the TASER® C2™ without laser sight (c’mon it’s only fifteen feet who needs a laser sight??) and when’s the last time you thought you could own an actual taser for under 250 bucks? Yep $249.99 takes it away with free shipping!! Just use the discount code NEWTASER when ordering from your new taser

That ends the crazy rant for today folks just remember:
Always carry self protection, be aware and have a plan!
Thanks a bunch
Poppajohn

Had an exchange of e-mails with an old customer (Billy F.) today about oil prices which turned out to be so interesting I thought I would share with everyone. Started with a rhetorical question “What is the real reason that we don’t have enough gasoline?” and the answer “I reckon there is plenty but the capitalists are holding it back to drive up the prices and make as much as they can off the backs of those who need it to survive… what say you?
Well here’s the answers plus a bit more that ocurred to me after talking with Billy:
So everyone’s worried about the price of gasoline including yours truly Poppajohn. How did we get in this shape and what can we do about it. Back in the 50s and 60s we had plenty of oil and gas (Iknow I was there) we could drive all day and night and still pay less than you’d pay for a cup of coffee.
Incidentally have you figured out the price of brewed coffee by the gallon lately, lessee at Starbucks’ prices one Vente (that’s a big one I think) of plain coffee runs $1.95 at my local Starbucks and it’s 20 ounces. Okay one gallon is 128 ounces 20 into 128 = 6.4 then $1.95 X 6.4 = $12.48 per gallon of coffee, hmmm ya still have to add cream and sugar.
Sorry looks like my ADD kicked in again.
So what happened to the price of gas since the 60s? Well lemme see. American gas companies have not been able to drill and produce in the US since the 60s or 70s. That was in Alaska. They have not been allowed to build new refineries here either so even if we could produce domestic oil we cannot refine it here in quantity. American oil companies are forced by us to look elsewhere for their supply. We get most of our imported oil from Canadian oil companies then comes Mexico. Both of whom are drilling and producing new oil from the gulf of Mexico. Not the US we can’t drill there even though everyone else in the world including the Chinese are already exploiting new oil sources there. We have a major source of new oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, we could slant drill at just a few sites with no impact to the environment but we would impact our domestic supply of oil very favorably (I don’t care what Chuck Schumer says), nope can’t do it. Fantastic new find at great depth in N. Dakota enough to fuel the US for many decades, 10 to 1 we never produce it or even drill for it and if we did we would be forced to refine it somewhere else. We are not serious about ending the domestic oil crisis due to the fact we are allowing a few crazy people who think they are “protecting the Earth” to have too great an influence over both the legislative and executive branches of government. This is true only because our news sources do not tell us anything except the “green” line which if you actually listen to it is the greatest example of BS the world has ever seen, (or heard as it were). So we end up forcing our energy companies to go to Opec for our oil and gas and pay market prices which are forced up both by Opec strangulation and speculation on oil futures. They have been forced to build far flung operations, huge fleets, Ports, overseas refineries and giant management teams. Then we give them an incredibly hard time when they are able to do so profitably and actually have a presidential candidate who campaigns on the premise of “I wanna take those profits”. In the last few years there has been a large push by the green folks to force us into methanol use. Now since so much of our food production has been diverted to energy our food prices are going out the roof. So presently we have much higher food prices with travel almost prohibitively expensive and they won’t even allow us to build a lousy nuclear fueled plant because they are so bad even though the entire third world is bringing them on line daily. Oil consumption by China and India is at record levels and increasing exponentially but our consumption must be reduced. Why because we have denied ourselves the only source of energy available now or in anyone’s foreseeable future. I mean that sincerely folks, there is nothing not solar, wind, geothermal, ocean waves or all of it put together that shows any promise of impacting our energy needs enough to matter for the next hundred years. Our following of the Kyoto accord will render the US impotent and helpless in the world marketplace but we are told we must follow it because “it’s the right thing to do for the Earth”. Just let me say this about that, We have no power to affect the Earth period. We have tried to affect the weather and we can’t. We have tried to make deserts bloom and we can until someone wants their water back (ie: northern California) and guess what Southern California has a water crisis we will never get over because we now have a population that cannot be sustained with the amount of water available to us from all possible sources put together.
All of our scratchings and buildings across the surface of the planet (including the Hoover Dam) will utterly disappear during the next Ice Age. Yes they are destructive and Ice ages have been coming and going at predictable intervals for the last three and a half million years. We know this because we are able to produce a history of them via the Greenland and Antarctica ice cores. The ice ages last about 100 to 110 thousand years and the inter glacial periods last about 10 to 12 thousand years. The interglacial we are presently in is about 12 thousand years old and includes all of recorded history even though Homo Sapiens has been around much longer, hmm. In other words we are on the precipice of a disastrous new ice age and denying ourselves the commodity that might be able to keep us warm for a few years of it. So what do we have now, a great recipe for domestic chaos brought on by sheer stupidity and we eat it up with a spoon.
I say folks if you presently don’t have personal protection items you need to get “tooled up”. Personal Security 4U Anyhow, that’s what I think.
Omigosh, don’t get Poppajohn started.

Thanks a lot!! Poppajohn

always carry personal protection, be aware and have a plan
Thanks alot

COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
Hi, Folks Poppajohn here, I’ve been sayin it for years!!
This is reprinted entirely from http://icecap.us

By John Coleman

jcoleman@kusi.com

it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990’s to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

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.

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.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970’s to always be a skeptic about research. 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.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D’s, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

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.

Reprinted entirely from the archives of the Rush Limbau show

Global Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell
February 1, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Here’s the latest on global warming today from Delaware Online: “Del. global warming skeptic stands pat - State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case. Delaware’s state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change — in one case directly contradicting the state’s own policy. David R. Legates, a University of Delaware geography professor, co-wrote a ‘friend of the court’ brief that opposed Delaware’s position in a multi-state U.S. Supreme Court case.” To cut to the chase here, “Legates, a Ph.D. climatologist,” which means he’s a scientist, “who received the title of state climatologist in 2005 from Daniel Leathers, now the head of the University of Delaware’s geography department. Legates joined a group of scientists late last year in urging the court to reject the claims of the state of Delaware. ‘It is simply impossible to conclude that the net effect of greenhouse gases endangers human health and welfare,’ the brief said. The institute has sued the government in the past to block some fuel economy standards for automobiles. The appearance of Delaware’s climatologist on the other side of the court case left some state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control officials frustrated. ‘He’s taken a position that “The climate is changing, but we don’t have any danger signs,”’ said Ali Mirzakhalili, air quality management chief for DNREC.”

The point of this is that here you have a scientist who’s willing to stick his neck out, say, “Wait a minute. There’s no conclusive evidence, even if it is happening, that we’re causing it, or B, that it’s going to be bad.” And that’s heresy. Audio sound bite time now, last night Larry King Alive, topic is: “Global warming, could it really kill us all?” That was the topic on Larry King Alive, “Global warming, could it really kill us all?” Barbara Boxer was one of the guests, Larry King’s question to Senator Barbara Boxer. “Are we in a panicked situation?”

BOXER: There’s really a climate of hope, not fear, because we are listening to the scientists, and yes, there are always a few who are the naysayers just like there were people who said the earth is flat, but eventually there’s a consensus. We know there’s a consensus that has built, and I’m not going to debate anymore whether this is happening. I know it’s happening. What we’re going to do is not be afraid of it, we’re going to wrap our arms around it and we’re going to do the things it takes to meet the challenge, which are energy efficiency, a whole list of things. We’re going to clean up power plants. We’re going to make sure we have green buildings.

RUSH: Eventually there is a consensus. There’s the word that disqualifies any of this as being science. Consensus is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition. You can’t have consensus in science. The libs, whether they know it or not, they probably do know it, but they think consensus is the way to sell it because, “Oh, but all these wonderful people agree.” Also a guest last night on Larry King Alive, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the climate expert, quote, unquote, for the Weather Channel who was the woman, as you know, who suggested that any TV meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society who did not believe in manmade global warming theory be decertified. So naturally she gets a big platform on Larry King Alive. He says, “Heidi Cullen, are the TV meteorologists taken seriously in this matter?”

CULLEN: TV meteorologists have such a huge opportunity. They’ve got access to people’s living rooms on a daily basis. The heat wave that we saw last summer, was that global warming? The incredibly warm January — early part of January — was that global warming? These are all opportunities to discuss the science. And I feel like for a lot of meteorologists they feel like it’s a political question, and the politics has really obscured the science. The science is really solid and global warming is absolutely happening, and I think we need to talk about it and I think TV meteorologists should talk about it as well.
RUSH: And if they don’t say the right things, she wants them decertified. She’s got it just backgrounds. She says the politics has obscured the science. Actually she doesn’t have it backgrounds, the politics of the pro-global warming crowd is ignoring science and making it up and saying that they have a consensus about it. I went into this a little bit yesterday. Look it, if in 1979 when the Newsweek cover came out and everybody was talking about global cooling, the ice storm in the southeast today would be evidence of it. The frozen fruit and vegetables in California that destroyed citrus crops would be proof of it. The below freezing temperatures in central Florida earlier this week would have been proof of global cooling. The blizzards and the all the snow in Colorado would be proof of global cooling. So it’s not science whatsoever.

Now, here’s another piece that I found at the AmericanThinker.com by J. R. Dunn. “It may well turn out that George W. Bush’s greatest service to the country won’t involve terrorism or Iraq at all, but his steadfast refusal to be buffaloed into joining the panicky consensus on global warming. Rumor had it that Bush intended to embrace the warming thesis at last in his State of the Union address. Instead Greens nationwide went into depressed tailspins as he called for an attack on the problem by means of technical advances, a curve ball very much in the old Bush mode, of a type that we’ve seen too little of recently. Bush is acting in defiance of much of the civilized world, led by a former vice-president and including the media, the entertainment community, the Democrats, most of the policy elite, that peculiar and never-before-encountered group known as ‘mainstream scientists’, and now even corporations, eager to clamber aboard the Kyoto wagon while there’s still room.

“One curious element involves certain facts that, on first consideration, would appear to be crucial but never seem to come up in debate. I have spent several years trying to track down the actual values of two numbers - the annual amount of carbon dioxide emitted by all human activities, and the amount of carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere. There are as many answers as there are sources, the first ranging from 3 billion to 28 billion tons, the second from 750 billion tons to 2.97 x 1012 tons, a number so large that there’s no common English word for it. Variations of this size - up to three orders of magnitude - suggest a serious lack of basic knowledge,” of the amount of carbon dioxide already there versus how much is being added by human beings. “The fact that it never comes up suggests that scientists are well aware of this.”

Moving on. Mr. Dunn here attempts to highlight some things by going back to look at history. “Despite the insistence of Al Gore and friends, this is far from the first time the Earth has ever passed through a climatic warming period. In fact, one occurred relatively recently, the medieval warm period, more commonly known as the Little Climatic Optimum (LCO), a period stretching roughly from the 10th to the 13th centuries, in which the average temperature was anything from 1 to 3 degrees centigrade higher than it is today. Several years ago, I covered the LCO in an article detailing the climatic history of the last millennium. But it’s worthwhile to cover the highlights once more, to help put the contemporary panic into perspective.
“How warm was it during the LCO? Areas in the Midlands and Scotland that cannot grow crops today were regularly farmed. England was known for its wine exports. The average height of Britons around A.D. 1000 was close to six feet, thanks to good nutrition. The small stature of the British lower classes (and the Irish) later in the millennium is an artifact of lower temperatures. People of the 20th century were the first Europeans in centuries to grow to their ‘true’ stature - and most had to grow up in the USA to do it. In fact, famine - and its partner, plague — appears to have taken a hike for several centuries. We have records of only a handful of famines during the LCO, and few mass outbreaks of disease. The bubonic plague itself appears to have retreated to its heartland of Central Asia.”

Anyway, it goes on and on and on describing even the Vikings. “The LCO was the first age of transatlantic exploration. When not slaughtering their neighbors, the Vikings were charting new lands across the North Atlantic, one of the stormiest seas on earth. If you tried the same thing today, traveling their routes in open boats of the size they used, you would drown. They discovered Iceland, and Greenland, and a new world even beyond, where they found grape vines, the same as in England. The Agricultural Revolution is not widely known except among historians. Mild temperatures eased land clearing and lengthened growing seasons. More certain harvests encouraged experimentation among farmers involving field rotation, novel implements, and new crops such as legumes.” For those of you in Rio Linda, forget it. It goes on to apply some common sense. What’s so bad if it is warming? Where is most of the world’s population concentrated now? Near the equator, where it’s hot as hell, year round.

The evidence here suggests that because of these fluctuating cycles of warming and cooling, that all kinds of processes change, agricultural, ocean, any number of things. It’s evidence that these things happen cyclically and naturally, and it’s the height of vanity for a bunch of human scientists acting upon consensus who are nothing more than in utter panic mode, plus you can’t take their politics out of it. They’re just purebred socialists who believe in big government. Remember, folks, the whole point of all this is to pound you with this enough and enough and enough to make you feel guilty enough for causing it that you will accept Draconian alterations in your lifestyle and higher taxes to fix it, otherwise we are doomed, otherwise there won’t be an earth, not one that we can survive. It’s all hocus-pocus. It’s one giant lie. Even if it is warming, the idea that there will not be any improvement anywhere on the planet as a result is just silly. When you look at the fact that the 10th and 13th centuries it was three degrees centigrade warmer then than today when there clearly couldn’t have been as much carbon dioxide output by humanity, the whole argument that these people are making should be obviated by simple history. But it’s not, until we keep working on it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Just want to give you one more thought here on this whole global warming mess. I want to ask you, “What is the common denominator between embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary Rodham Clinton?” What do these four things have in common, embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary Rodham Clinton? What is one thing in common? What’s the common denominator? You have four fantasies here from the left: embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary. You have four magic answers to all of our problems, four untested and unproved, at best, programs to make life peachy keen, and they are all a lifetime away from delivering their promise. You gotta throw Hillary Clinton in that list. Embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, Hillary Rodham Clinton, all liberal Democrat fantasies, pure and simple.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Dick in Park Rapids, Minnesota, you’re next on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Well, Rush what a thrill.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Rush, to piggyback on Barbara Boxer — pardon the pun — wasn’t there a congressional consensus a few years ago regarding the WMDs in Iraq?

RUSH: Oh, yeah, it was a consensus of 1998. There was a consensus in 2002. Yes, there was a consensus in the US Senate based on intelligence results and reports that there were weapons of mass destruction to be found — furthermore, the Democrats led by some — I don’t think Boxer was on board — said because of this consensus, we had to go there and disarm the guy.

CALLER: Well, so in that regard, consensuses are not always a bad thing, but when it comes to science it is a bad thing?

RUSH: Well, what it better illustrates is that in one stretch here you could say that a consensus was wrong. But in science, there can’t be consensus. People think that I am being a little footloose and fancy free with the language here, but if you stop and think, science is not about the most people who will agree to a proposition, that makes the proposition so. If that were science, why, we’d still have the earth being flat and the sun orbiting around the earth. Consensus simply cannot have any place in science, and if the global warming crowd continues to pulverize and sell it on the basis that there’s consensus, that ought to tell anybody who understands the English language that there isn’t any science in it, that it is all politics. I got an e-mail, and I knew this was going to happen, because I have empathy with the audience. I knew this was going to happen. “Rush, you’re talking about this so much, tired of this global warming stuff. If we can’t change it, and I agree with you on that, why bother? Just let it go because this is all moot.” I said no, “It’s not.” The reason why I’m talking about it — and I’m glad for the question, to be able to phrase it in this way, because many of you may be asking the same thing.
This global warming issue is the essence of liberalism versus conservatism, which is what this program is about. Global warming, militant environmentalism, militant animal rightsism, is nothing more, those things are nothing more than opportunities for communists, socialists, people that support dictatorships, to empower elements of society they think are important, government, statism, and this sort of thing, and every element of conservatism versus liberalism is to be found in the global warming debate. Remember, liberals are self-loathing and their guilt and their hatred for their own country and advanced civilizations and societies, they believe that they have the power that human beings, despite the contempt and despite the condescension with which they look at human beings, they think human beings are so imperfect and so selfish and so carefree that they have the ability to destroy the planet. Remember, there is no god in liberalism other than liberalism itself. Religion is the environment; religion is animal rights; religion is liberal causes. That is what they are loyal to, and they are liberals before they are anything else.

It’s amazing, in fact, the left out there decrying devout Christianity or Catholicism or anything of the sort. They are as religious about what it is they believe as anybody else. They are as intolerant of people who disagree. They also have to rely on faith. Faith is that which is not provable. In order to accept belief in something, you must have faith if it can’t be proved. That sums up the left’s association and attachment to global warming. It represents an opportunity for liberals to do everything they want to do in terms of controlling and limiting freedom and liberty. They blame the American people and civilized peoples all over the world for destroying the planet. They infuse everybody with as much guilt for destroying the planet and how is this guilt ladled out? It is ladled out on the basis that your lifestyle is too rich, that your lifestyle is based on greed, that your lifestyle is based on selfishness, and it’s also based on the fact that you don’t care about anybody else but yourself, that you are damaging the planet in the process. They have to get hold of you to save the planet, their god.

They have to get hold of you to save their religion. In the process of making you feel guilty, you will support massive increases in the size of government and state, in order to fix the problem that you have caused, and you will gladly fork over more and more taxes to do this while in the throes of your guilt. Global warming is nothing more than a scheme, particularly the manmade characteristics of global warming, the desire for them to make you believe, the attempt to make you believe that you’re causing it. Every argument, fundamental and otherwise, that we make in the discussion of liberalism versus conservatism can be found in that issue. Since I, as a conservative, believe in liberty and freedom, since I have a much higher power and higher authority than liberals or the planet, since I do not believe that socialism works because I know it doesn’t work and you don’t need a consensus for that, you need a simple historical perspective and lesson or two, I’m going to oppose everything they try to make liberalism as mainstream in our society as possible. So that’s why I focus on this.

I focus on the details of global warming because it may be one way of convincing as many people as possible that the whole method by which they’re going about proving it is bogus. It’s just not enough to say, “Hey, folks, liberalism is just a bunch of liberals running amok here with global warming.” You need more than that, I think, if you’re trying to be genuinely persuasive. But it’s hideous, the whole global warming thing. By the way, they’ve recruited a bunch of fellow travelers and idiots that have no clue what they’re doing. Like this Heidi Cullen, I’m sure she believes everything she’s saying. I don’t think she’s probably an activist. She may have been formed into one by now. But she’s probably just a Miss America Pageant contestant. Probably thinks that she’s saving the world, she probably buys into all of it because it makes her feel good to care and all this sort of thing. Not saying that everybody out there believing in this stuff is a rock-ribbed activist liberal, but liberalism is seductive to people. If they can make you feel guilty, they offer you a solution for the guilt and so forth, and then you can live blame free for all the destruction that is happening. So, look, I could go on and on here for literal hours about the elements of liberalism and conservatism in that argument or in this issue, global warming . That’s why I’m not letting go of it. Back in just a second.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Look, here’s another great example, folks. Headline: “US family oriented job policies weak. The United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries with regard to family-oriented workplace policies such as maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding, a new study by Harvard and McGill University researchers says. … The study, officially being issued Thursday, says workplace policies for families in the United States are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries. Notably, it says the U.S. is one of only five countries out of 173 in the survey that does not guarantee some form of paid maternity leave; the others are Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea. ‘More countries are providing the workplace protections that millions of Americans can only dream of,’ said the study’s lead author, Jody Heymann, founder of the Harvard-based Project on Global Working Families and director of McGill’s Institute for Health and Social Policy.” This goes on to say that the Family Medical Leave Act is not enough.

Now, what’s the point of the story? The point of the story is to say the US government is not ordering this and making businesses do it or providing for it itself. You are not responsible for anything that your own decisions cause to happen in your life. You have a child, not your responsibility to make sure you have the means and the ability to take care of the child. No, it’s the government’s job. And once again, who’s the arch enemy? The United States, the most powerful, the most generous, the most prosperous, the most free nation in the world. The leftists target this country every day in an attempt to destroy the institutions and traditions which have made it great. Global warming is no different than this story saying we don’t do enough for mothers who need to breast-feed. We don’t do enough for people that need to take sick-leave. We don’t do enough. We just don’t do enough. Meaning our government is not socialistic, pure and simple.

END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material…
(Delaware Online: Del. Global Warming Skeptic Stands Pat)
(American Thinker: Resisting Global Warming Panic - J.R. Dunn)
(Harper’s letter dismisses Kyoto as ’socialist scheme’)
(Reuters: Scientists charge White House pressure on warming)
(Reuters: California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012)
(Lauer: Global Warming ‘Literally Could be End of the World as We Know It’)
(Reuters: Lights out at Eiffel Tower for climate risk)
(NRO: Waxman’s Kyoto Strategy)
(WT: The cooling world)
(Earth Times: Two New Books Confirm Global Warming Is Natural, Moderate)
(April 28, 1975 Newsweek: “The Cooling World” .PDF)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

The following is reprinted entirely from thr 4/29/07 OCREGISTER Orange County CA.

Sunday, April 22, 2007
Global warming: Inconvenient questions
The ’settled science’ of climate change … isn’t settled.
By MARK LANDSBAUM
Register editorial writer

In March, NASA scientists spotted a region on the sun they expected to be calm but instead was, “a bubbling mass of swaying and arching spikes, some more than 5,000 miles long … causing huge temperature flares,” as reported in Investor’s Business Daily.

Now a short quiz: The Earth recently has experienced a little bit of global warming, and by the way, so has Mars. What’s the common factor?

A. Sport utility vehicles

B. Fossil fuels

C. Al Gore

D. The sun

Answer: D, the sun. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany noted that the sun has been burning more brightly for the past 60 years, which they calculated would account for the entire increase in Earth’s temperature during that period. “[R]esearch suggests that for the large part variations in global temperatures are beyond our control and are instead at the mercy of the sun’s activities,” said a study by researchers at Duke University and the Army Research Office in June, 2003.

Nevertheless, we are hysterically warned that manmade global warming makes “it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization,” according to former Vice President Al Gore.

“[I]t’s a question of survival,” said Gore. “It’s a moral issue.”

In 2001, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hyped its global warming study, claiming disaster loomed over the next century and that the culprit could very well be manmade carbon-dioxide emissions. We ought to do something, the IPCC report urged.

This year, IPCC revised its dire forecast, substantially softening the outlook. But the IPCC became even more insistent about man’s culpability. Curiously, the less-dire predictions became reason for more a passionate demand that we must take drastic corrective action. Immediately.

If the outlook has gotten less severe, why has the remedy gotten more drastic?

The global warming scare machine gathers momentum. Last September, before the most recent IPCC forecast, intimidation to quash dissent went into high gear. “The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action, and we can’t have people trying to undermine it,” said a Royal Society of London statement, essentially demanding global warming critics should shut up.

Why the resistance? Consider some motives. Could it be because Europe’s attempts to force cuts in CO2 emissions have failed dramatically? After 10 years, nearly every Western European nation is producing more not less CO2, but at considerable additional economic cost due to the Kyoto Protocol’s Draconian regulations. Could it be because since peaking in 1998, the average global temperature has decreased, not increased? How much of that trend can alarmists risk before people wonder why reality doesn’t match the scare story? Could it be because federal funding for global warming research is undermined by skeptics who point out holes in the theory?

Perhaps, global warming proponents are aggressively pushing their agenda for fear the public will shrug off their claims as bogus, and politicians will be unable to justify a heavy hand. Quick, act now before the problem disappears entirely! Windows of opportunity don’t stay open forever. Just 30 years ago the environmental-governmental conglomerate was convinced we were irreversibly on the road to the next Ice Age.

What we do know is that the global warming bandwagon is a convergence of those who stand to gain control (government), those who stand to profit (government-financed researchers), those who see profiteering and control as inevitable so position themselves to get their share of the pie (big corporations) and, of course, ideologues who worship everything green (radical environmentalists). For good measure throw in a superficial media’s insatiable appetite for disaster stories, emotive Hollywood celebrities and opportunistic politicians, and it’s a formidable coalition, indeed.

As President Eisenhower presciently warned in his farewell address: “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity … The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”

Despite what you may hear from self-interested scientific technological elites, global warming occurs naturally. Historically it has been as beneficial as it has been detrimental. Man’s contribution to it today is somewhere between small and insignificant. Hurricane activity hasn’t been linked to global warming, and there are fewer of them since 1970, anyway. Seas won’t rise 20 feet. Grazing cows create more greenhouse gas than your SUV. But that’s not exactly the party line of global warming alarmists.

Let’s examine some global warming issues: the alleged scientific “consensus” that manmade CO2 is a threat, the computerized models forecasting the threat, the science they are based on, the solutions being advanced and some possible motives.
‘Consensus’

“It is sheer fantasy to suggest that a huge majority of scientists with expertise in global climate change endorse an alarming interpretation of the recent climate data,” climate physicist S. Fred Singer, a research professor at George Mason University, writes in his book, “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years.”

Although it’s generally conceded that industrialized societies add to atmospheric CO2 levels, whether it has an adverse environmental effect continue to be vigorously debated within the scientific community.
Computerized climate models

In his book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming,” Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, reveals “the dirtiest secret of all regarding climate models: When we attempt to test them, they fail miserably.” Computer models are only as good as the data entered in them.

Add bias to this imperfect picture. The IPCC previously generated 24 different computer models with a vast range of predictions. The Clinton-Gore administration cherry-picked the two models with the hottest and wettest predictions to illustrate the global warming threat. The worst of the worst.

Even so, climate models are so unreliable they can’t even “predict” what’s already happened. Inputting known facts from past dates doesn’t result in “forecasts” of the actual temperatures that occurred on those dates.

“It is scientific malpractice to use them,” observes University of Virginia environmental sciences research professor Patrick Michaels. “I choose my words carefully here. If a physician prescribed medication that demonstrably did not work, he would lose his license.”

Singer agrees: “The models have erroneously predicted a 20{+t}{+h} century surge in Earth’s temperatures to match surging CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It hasn’t happened.”
The science

Exhale. There. You’ve just polluted the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is an essential, natural substance for man, animals and plants. But thanks to the amateur scientists sitting as Supreme Court justices, carbon dioxide now officially is regarded to be a “pollutant.” In reality, CO2’s connection to global warming is not that it pollutes the atmosphere, but that as it collects in the atmosphere it prevents heat from escaping into space.

In theory, greenhouse gases – of which man’s contribution is about 0.28 percent – trap heat close to the Earth. “The greenhouse effect must play some role,” concedes Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center. “But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It’s pure guesswork.”

Singer, who makes the case for a “moderate, natural 1,500-year climate cycle” of global warming and cooling, says if greenhouse theory is accurate, the poles should have warmed several degrees Celsius since 1940. Instead, polar temperatures have fallen.

Moreover, climate scientists note that historically increases in atmospheric CO2 often follow rather than precede increases in global temperatures, belying the theory that the gas brings on warmer climate.

Even if CO2 were a global warming demon, could its effect be reversed? “There is no known, feasible policy that can stop or even slow these changes in a fashion that could be scientifically measured,” according to Michaels.
Solutions

“Control energy, and you control the economy,” author Horner writes. The “Kyoto (Protocol) and its ilk seek to ration energy use.” Even Kyoto’s advocates admit its carbon emission cuts are only a “first step,” despite the havoc they play on economies.

“There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, [the Kyoto Protocol]would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures – one-twentieth of a degree by 2050,” Singer observes. Kyoto’s effect on warming would be so minimal as to be measurably insignificant.

In Canada, similar efforts also have been costly and ineffective. A previously suppressed report by the Canadian government evaluating the effectiveness of spending $500 million since the year 2000 to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases revealed the money largely was wasted, producing neither greenhouse gas reductions nor new, cleaner technologies.
Motives

“Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public … and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are,” said Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, as quoted in the book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.”

“Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding,” observed MIT Sloan Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen, who, incidentally, was one of the IPCC’s contributing authors.

Dr. William Gray, professor of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State University, a leading expert on hurricane predictions, says flatly: “Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics, and money behind it.”
IMPLICATIONS

If global warming doesn’t really portend radical climate change, what will change if we adopt all the Draconian and expensive measures alarmists demand? You will pay more to get less, economic growth will be retarded, and government will control more than it does now.

“Be Worried. Be Very Worried” was Time magazine’s global warming headline a year ago. There is reason to worry. But it has little to do with the slight increase in global temperatures we may experience over the next century.

If the world redirects its resources, taxes its citizenry and restricts its industries as alarmists desire, what will happen when the issue cools off, so to speak?

If warming gives way to cooling, as it always has in the Earth’s history, will you get a refund of the new taxes you’ve been forced to pay? Will industries driven bankrupt be reestablished? Will the millions of persons in the Third World who died because they were denied the benefits that come with economic development be resurrected?

There is much at stake, economically, socially, and indeed, morally.

Contact the writer: mlandsbaum@ ocregister.com or 714-796-5025

And that is also what I think!! We have published more on this which can be seen here: www.kbspersonalsecurity.com/420kyrclimate.htm
Thanks a lot for reading
John