Has anyone other than myself noticed that only the liberals in the United States and Europe care about global warming? 

Maybe I am.

 

It is obvious that China and India don't care about global warming or else they wouldn't be uppig their importation of the oil that is making us all sick like what Harry Reid said.

 

It is obvious that Africa doesn't care about global warming as they use more and more fertilizers to do more and more farming which causes more and more clear cutting of forests and more and more desertification.

 

It is obvious that South America doesn't care about global warming as countries like Brazil clear cut Amazonian rain forests, vital for carbon sequestering (ala carbon offsets) so they can plant more crops.

 

It is obvious that Russia doesn't care about global warming as they lay claim to oil in the Arctic Ocean, continue to pump tons of natural gas out of underground wells and let's not forget the ecological wastelands that the former Soviet Union created during their 80 years of existance.

 

It is obvious that Arab nations and OPEC don't care about global warming or else Saudi Arabia wouldn't have agreed to up oil production by 300,000 barrels of oil a day.  Iraq is bragging about increasing monthly oil production to nearly 2.5 million barrels. 

 

If we were really worried about our "addiction to oil" (Bush made a huge mistake with that comment, by the way), then we should really address the "addiction" the same way we are trying to tackle the "war on drugs" by hitting the sources of supply as well as trying to curb demand.  All Democrat eco-communists in Congress are doing is attacking the user and not the supplier.  Well actually, congressional eco-communists are doing a very good job of attack domestic oil suppliers.  Our American oil companies only provide 25% of the oil we use, yet Congress wants to hit them with "windfall profit taxes" on what they are making.  This is akin to busting the neighborhood drug peddler and calling it a great victory against drugs while letting tons and tons of drugs to come in to the country unabaited. 

 

There are two reasons why the 3rd world and Arab nations are doing all of this despite the "concensus" opinion of international scientists that global warming is real and man-made: 1) poor nations have people to feed, people to employ and people that enjoy increasing standards of living, and 2) GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX AND THEY KNOW IT!!!

 

They also know that the U.S. will get the blame for ALL of global warming because they know the eco-communists in America will make sure we get the blame.  Truth is that average people are backtracking as fast as they can from global warming hysteria.  60% of Britains don't believe in global warming anymore.  90% of Americans polled feel that high gas prices are hurting them and over 500,000 people signed Newt Gingrich's "Drill here, drill now" petition.

 

The truth is that 'global warming' is the latest vehicle used by communists in the environmental movement ("eco-communists") to seize power from us, The People, and dictate to us how to live our lives.

In the last few days, we have seen our two candidates track different paths on subjects of great concern to the American people.  Fortunately, it is John McCain rather than Barack Obama that is doing things right. 

 

The first topic was John McCain dismissing Phil Gramm for his comments about Americans "whinning" about their economic situation. This statement was incredibly stupid and insensitive. The fact is that perceptions are reality.  The perception battle is what helped to kill the re-election of George H. W. Bush as the media did story after story on Bush not knowing the price of milk and stuff like that. McCain was wise to dismiss Phil Gramm and get ahead of the bone-headed comments.

 

The second topic is the lack of foreign language education in American schools that Obama thought severe enough to opine that he was embarassed that Americans only know "Merci beau coup" when traveling to France.  My first question is: what average American can afford to fly to France this summer with fuel prices so high and the dollar so low?  My second question is: considering what a sorry job our schools do teaching kids their primary language, English, why should we be worrying about them speaking a second or third language poorly?  Fact is that Obama is rapidly portraying himself as out of touch and an elitist.  Actually, he has been working on the elitist part for some time now.  With his comments about Pennsylvania voters clinging to "God and guns during times of difficulty", Obama is showing that he is out of touch with average Americans.  The biggest mistake Obama will make is not supporting a lift on the congressional ban against drilling for oil off-shore.  Obama's answers to date can be summed up as: I'm going to punish Big Oil with high taxes.  When confronted with stories of hardships caused by high fuel prices, Obama's answers have been basically "alternative forms of energy will save us".  In other words, Barack "Marie Antoinette" Obama is telling poor and middle class Americans. "Let them drive Priuses", a car most Americans can afford to buy and can't afford to maintain if they buy them. 

 

Poll after poll shows that most Americans are doing okay, but it is their neighbors, friends and family that they worry about more.  In 1992, James Carvelle accurately summed up the race then as "It's the economy, stupid."   While oft repeated, with high foreclosures, high gas prices, higher levels of interest rates, higher levels of unemployment, teh first candidate that can connect with those Americans that are worried about the course the country is headed on and offers tangible plans to aleviate the pains, real or perceived, that they are feeling will win this election. 

 

Headline - June 27, 2008 (LiveScience): North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008  

Story in San Luis Obispo Tribune (June 26, 2008) has the line: "More than 4,000 low-income San Luis Obispo County residents could be denied health coverage if deep cuts in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget are approved, according to a study being released today."

Headline - June 27, 2008 (USAToday): Honey Bee crisis could lead to higher food prices

Headline - June 27, 2008 (NBC17 Raleigh, NC): Easley: Drought Could Be Worse Than Last Year

Nothing provokes the fear response in readers than the word "could" in a news story.  Liberal editors love that word. It can mean anything. You can start any story off with the word 'could' and you have just made news.  What they don't tell you are the other side of the coin possibilities. The "North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008" story actually says that it is a "50-50" chance that the North Pole could be ice free.  Well that is true about just about everything, isn't it?   You can be struck by lightning... or you could not.  You could lose your job tomorrow, develop an incurable disease, have a loved one killed in a drive-by shooting, lose your home to foreclosure, be a victim of terrorism... or you could not.  The economy could slide into depression... or not.  The earth could be hit by an asteroid... or it could not. There is an endless amount of stories that can be produced just by inserting the word "could" into the story.  With the Drive-by Media, almost 95% of the use of the word "could" is in the negative context. If the story has anything to do with projections about the Bush Administration, the Iraq War, Global Warming, the economy, unemployment, or home foreclosures, it will most certainly be negative.  The word 'could' is also tied to studies in an endless parade of liberals using the fallacy of the "appeal to authority" to justify their fraudulent positions.  Liberals always depend on some figure of authority telling the rest of us how we should be living our lives. 

How is it that any of the above possibilities can be considered 'news' in the first place?  Because an "expert" says so, that's how. 

 

"Could" and DDT

Look at any story about product safety.  Just because the possibilities exist that one thing or the other you enjoy or makes your life more convenient somehow makes a lab rat somewhere sick, you, or more importantly, your children, could be poisoned, a product should be taken off of the shelves.  This is how it came to be that the most effective fighter of Malaria in the third-world, DDT, came to be banned for use everywhere.  Rachel Carson's 1962 book "Silent Spring" created such a stir on the possibilities that DDT 'could' have widespread effects on the ecosystem and human life, without evidence to support the claim, that the EPA banned the use of the pesticide in 1972.  The rest of the world followed suit shortly thereafter.  What are we left with because DDT 'could' be harmful to the environment and humans? We have the idiots on American Idol going over to Africa to ask you and me to give money so that African children can have bed nets to ward off Malaria spreading Mosquitoes.  Bed nets!?!?!?!  WTF, over?  Why not just use the banned DDT, eradicate the freakin' Mosquitoes and be done with the disease of Malaria once and for all?  We can't spray DDT in Africa because the American Bald Eagle, 15,000 miles away could be threatened by DDT usage.  What utter nonsense.  I can only hope that St. Peter holds Rachel Carson and her supporters responsible for each and every death caused by Malaria in an African country because her "could" ended the use of the most effective Malaria fighter in the world.

"Could" and Global Warming 

The area of so-called man-made global warming is rife with stories about all the things that the global warming hoax 'could' produce.  In a quick Google search on "Global Warming could", here are the things that news stories said global warming could cause:

more thunderstorms

no polar bears

cannibalism (thanks Ted Turner)

global cooling

mass extinction

more war

economic devastation

the next Ice Age

more cardiovascular disease

increases in Malaria (see above for the real reason why)

increases in kidney stone disease

more wildfires

increases in Asthma in England

4.5 billion people dying by 2012 because of permafrost melting

wetter grasslands

damaged French wine industry 

displace birds

decrease ocean volume through evaporation

increase ocean volume threatening coastlines

colder water causing more hurricanes

warmer water causing more hurricanes

damaged crocodile reproduction

worsen US oil output

food riots

wipe out most birds

a frozen Europe

a strained Northeast power grid

a water crisis in India

on and on and on

Even the supposed cures for global warming 'could' do such things as damage the ozone layer. The planting of trees as part of the bogus "carbon offsets" can actually make global warming worse by reflecting sunlight back up into the atmosphere.  How do "experts" come up with some of these predictions of gloom and doom?  Since "experts" have no real evidence that any global warming has occurred at all, they have to create artificial circumstances that would allow them to say that global warming could happen. They do this with computer modeling.  One of the key terms within the computing world is GIGO, or "garbage in, garbage out". Used mostly in computer programming, the GIGO concept really means that your program will only be as good as the code that you write for it.  The same holds true with all of these global warming computer models that have sprung up in recent years.  Since these "experts" know that there is no control group for everything in the atmosphere, they have to recreate it in a "controlled” environment.  But what these "experts" don't tell you is that they don't know all of the variables required to produce a truly accurate representation of the earth's atmosphere.  For instance, the "experts" have no clue exactly how much precipitation occurs daily around the world.  Since precipitation is the main mechanism for the earth to cool itself, it is a major factor in determining what the local temperature of a given region is.  Furthermore, there is no global temperature.  The statistic of 1 degree temperature increase over the last 100 years is an average of averages at different reporting locations around the world. So, the computer models are really, really rough guestimates of what the guy programming the model thinks ought to be going on out there.  The use of computer modeling is what led the dimwits from the Department of the Interior in Washington D.C. to place the polar bear on the Endangered Species list. (http://www.doi.gov/news/06_News_Releases/061227.html)

Fortunately, there are several right-minded people out there willing to fight this insanity of computer modeling.  (http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1163)  Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has stated the State of Alaska will sue the Department of the Interior in Federal court to prevent the polar bear from being placed on the Endangered Species List.

If the loony left were actually interested in producing a valid computer model of the earth's atmosphere, their "experts" would do more research on how the atmosphere works and do a better job of capturing atmospheric variables in their models, these doomsayer predictions would have more credence.  But then again, that wouldn't serve the interests of the global warming doomsday cultists.

One last word on the "North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008" story.  This is not the first time this story has been circulated.  Actually, this story appears every year.  What has changed is that the out-years have become shorter and shorter until this year where the doom is this year, supposedly.

BBC News (December 12, 2007): "Arctic Ice Free by 2013"  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm

UK Guardian (September 5, 2007): "Arctic could be Ice Free in 23 years"    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/05/climatechange.sciencenews

The University Center for Atmospheric Research (December 11, 2006): "Abrupt Ice Retreat Could Produce Ice-Free Arctic Summers by 2040" http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/arctic.shtml

LiveScience (November 3, 2005): "Arctic Summer could be Ice Free by 2105"  http://www.livescience.com/environment/050823_ice_free.html  (Not British, which kind of explains why they are off on t

UK Guardian (November 3, 2004): "Global Warming 'will leave Arctic Ice Free".... by 2070.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/nov/03/environment.environment

Oh, but how soon we forget this article from the ancient time period called "The 1990's" (which is only referenced to bolster Bill Clinton's ego about how great life was 'back then').  An article from the website "NewScientist" dated April 10, 1993 is entitled "Science: Algae tell of Arctic's ice-free past"  (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13818682.900-science-algae-tell-of-arctics-icefree-past-.html).  The article says that ancient algae dated 7,000 years ago shows that much of the Arctic Ocean was pretty much ice free. So this is nothing new?  What were humans doing 7,000 years ago to cause all of this Arctic ice thaw?  Must be all the cars that the Sumerians were driving around back then. 

Other uses for "Could"

Media loves to use the word 'could' to hypothesis about other projected disasters.  The SLO Tribune article referenced above stated in the body that the people most in danger of losing health-care benefits under Governor Schwarzenegger's budget were people that had difficulty speaking English and who had transitory home situation.  For those of you in Rio Linda, CA (stealing from Rush for a second), that means illegal aliens would lose their access to our health care.  The article never says "illegal aliens" anywhere in the article, but what other group of people is both transitory and have poor English skills?  Why don't the writers of these "news stories" just come out and say, "Budget will hurt migrant worker health care" or something at least close to their prime concerns?  Because they know that the average taxpayer in California would go "So what? They aren't supposed to be here in the first place."

The media also uses could to project nonexistent benefits.  Today, (July 10, 2008) Yahoo! News had an article: "Study: As gas prices go up, auto deaths drop".  So feel good and rejoice, America! The confiscatory high prices you are paying every time fill your tank are SAVING LIVES!!!!  Hooray for high gas prices!!!!  What a crock of horse manure!  Truth is that these gas prices are high because liberal eco-communists in Congress WANT them high.  Otherwise, they would drop the congressional ban, in concert with Bush dropping the executive order ban, and allow off-shore oil exploration.  Mr. and Mrs. America would see gas prices drop by 30 cents in a week because the oil futures market would see oil on the market in the future.  But that doesn't fit the policy shift the eco-communists want. 

In the end, 'could' can and does mean anything the media wants it to mean.  Usually, it results in policies that abridge our freedoms and do damage to our families' standard of living and way of life.

 

 

Barack Hussein Obama, Democrat messiah candidate for president, has been changing his positions on the issues of the day faster than any candidate in US presidential candidacy history.  He has done more than 'flip-flopped' on issues, typically just a 180 degree change on the issue.  Obama has done complete rotations on the issues.  He flip-flops on his flip-flops, thus completing complete rotations just like the earth one day to the next.  Below are some of B. Hussein Obama's greatest rotations:

 

 

In 2002, Obama delivered a speech where he staked out that he was, and is, against the war in Iraq.  This speech, incidentally, was the first time Obama said that his grandfather told of hearing stories of fellow US troops entering Aushwitz and Treblinka, which were liberated by the Soviet Union. 

 

Obama has stated repeatedly that he will have all troops home in 16 months.  However, recently he said that it is possible that his position on Iraq could be "refined" once he meets commanders on the ground later this month.  What is he expecting to hear from General Odierno, the former second in command to General Petreaus?  He should expect to hear that Iraq will be secure in one calendar year from now.  Hence, his "refined" position will be that all US troops will be home 26 months from now, after the US has won in Iraq. Actually, it will take 3 years to do any Iraq redeployment correctly.

 

Obama completes his rotation by saying that the media is making too much over his "refinement" comment.  Therefore, Obama has come full circle back to "all troops home in 16 months."

 

 

During the primary fight with Clinton, Obama said that he wanted to "renegotiate" NAFTA with Canada and Mexico to get some sort of fanciful guarantees on labor and environment gaurantees.  Canada immediately issued a press release that any renegotiation of NAFTA will have to include discussions regarding the tariffs, or lack thereof, placed on Canadian oil, which accounts for 45% of US oil importation. China also approached Canada about paying the tariffs the US wasn't paying to get the oil Canada was sending to the US. 

 

But here's where the rotation begins.  One of Obama's aides told a the Canadian Ambassador that Obama was not serious about renegotiating NAFTA and that it was just "campaign rhetoric".

(http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/02/obama_nafta_and_canada.html)

 Austan Goolsbee, top economic advisor to Obama, did talk to a representative of the Canadian cousleor general in Chicago where the subject of NAFTA was discussed. 

 

Now, Obama is back to saying that NAFTA is bad for America and that the labor unions and eco-communists want more protections in NAFTA.  Well, they didn't exactly say that but that is who is pulling Obama's strings on NAFTA.

 

 

According to the Wall Street Journal (June 10, 2008), "In January 2007, Sen. Obama criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for opting out of public financing for the primary season. In February, responding to a questionnaire, he pledged to remain in the public-financing system as long as his Republican opponent agreed to a "fund-raising truce" for the general election."

 

Well, Obama unilaterally broke the truce on June 10th by saying that he will refuse public monies for his campaign, the first candidate to do so since Watergate.  It is easy to walk away from public financing when your campaign has raised more than a quarter of a billion dollars.  Integrity does have a price tag.  It is $265 million. 

 

Obama says this is no big deal since he still wants to reform the campaign system.  Too bad there is no leadership by example on this topic with Obama. 

 

 

The real problem here, and there are more examples that could be given, is that American still don't know what Obama's core beliefs are.  Is he the same guy that says he cringed when his grandmother made a racially insensitive comment or the one that he is trotting out in recent campaign ads trumpeting her "Kansas values"?  Is he the candidate that says that he could no more turn his back on The Rev, Reverend Wright, than he could turn his back on his uncle or is he the candidate that disavowed The Rev after he continued to make the same comments Obama was criticised for listening to.  He then left the church altogether when Trinity Baptist brought in a guest pastor, Reverend Pflugger, that said exactly the same things The Rev said about Hillary Clinton.  Obama only left because he felt that the church would be continually used against him, not that he disagreed with anything either reverend said.  

 

The fact is that Obama's views change quicker than the direction of a breeze in Kansas (that's fast, by the way).  No one knows what Obama really stands for in terms of his core philosohy.  Those that think they have figured it out have been dismissed as racists.  So the question remains: who really is Obama at his core?  Who is pulling the strings and writing the pretty speeches for Obama?

 

Will the real Obama please stand up?