Exodus 18:21  21 "But choose men of ability from all of the people. They must have respect for God. You must be able to trust them. They must not try to get money by cheating others. Appoint them as officials.   

EPA  or  Cap & Trade, Obama wants to get his way as costs necessarily skyrocket and you the consumer will have to pay, voters in 2012 will have their say.

Skyrocketing energy costs passed on to you & Climate Tales.  Follow the money.


Click on your state to find out how important Coal is to you!  Low cost energy for businesses that have to pass on their costs to consumers.  Low cost energy for consumers.  JOBS!  Coal continues to serve as the backbone of America's economy. As our most abundant, reliable and affordable source of fossil energy, we rely on our coal resources to supply half of all the electricity consumed by the U.S. America's enormous coal resources are more critical than ever in generating the low-cost electricity necessary to stimulate and sustain a robust economic recovery.  Obama’s EPA wants to make your costs skyrocket, do you want that to happen?

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp       supply and demand 101, why does gas cost so much, besides that the Fed is printing more dollars that commodities are priced in dollars?  The law of demand also applies to Taxes.  Obama should take some Economics classes.


http://consumerenergyalliance.org/calls-to-action/high-electricity-bills-too-sure-if-the-epa-has-its-way/#form           Take Action to try to help keep your energy bills as low as possible.  Best thing to do also is to make an informed vote.   


http://news.investors.com/article/601827/201202211837/obama-shifting-talk-on-high-gas-prices.htm?Ntt=double-talk-on-energy Energy: When gas prices hit $4 a gallon in 2008, candidate Barack Obama said it was due to previous failed energy policies. Now that prices are heading still higher, President Obama calls it progress. Already, pump prices are higher than they've been in previous years, suggesting they will top $4 soon and possibly reach an unprecedented $5 this summer.

President Obama is starting to notice the political implications. "Progress" isn't exactly how Obama described the country's energy picture in 2008, when gas prices were closing in on $4 a gallon. Then, it was a clear sign of "Washington's failure to lead on energy," which was "turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans."  "For the well-off in this country," Obama said in May 2008, "high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they're a huge problem, bordering on a crisis."  In August that year, he declared rising energy costs to be "one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced" and that gas prices "are wiping out paychecks and straining businesses."

While Gibbs is right that domestic production has climbed in the past three years, Obama's policies had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Oil coming from offshore wells was in the pipeline, so to speak, during the Clinton and Bush years, when those permits were issued. And the oil pouring out of North Dakota is the result of drilling on private lands.  Obama, in fact, has made it clear for years that he has no real interest in boosting domestic production.  When President Bush announced plans in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, Obama dismissed it, saying "it would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."  "Offshore drilling," he said, "would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now."  In a big energy speech he gave in August 2008, Obama argued that "if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only 3% of the world's oil reserves."

And while in office, Obama's done everything he can to limit production (Obama…have you heard of Supply vs. Demand???) — slow-walking offshore permits, killing the Keystone XL pipeline, making it even harder to get oil out of federal lands.



 Obama’s war on coal causing prices to “necessarily skyrocket”

Last week PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia) held its 2015 capacity auction. These are the first real, market prices that take Obama’s most recent anti-coal regulations into account, and they prove that he is keeping his 2008 campaign promise to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt.

Why the massive price increases? Andy Ott from PJM stated the obvious: “Capacity prices were higher than last year's because of retirements of existing coal-fired generation resulting largely from environmental regulations which go into effect in 2015.” Northern Ohio is suffering from more forced coal-plant retirements than the rest of the region, hence the even higher price.

These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.  House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) aptly explained: “The PJM auction forecasts a dim future where Americans will be paying more to keep the lights on. We are seeing more and more coal plants fall victim to EPA’s destructive regulatory agenda, and as a result, we are seeing more job losses and higher electricity prices.”  The only thing that can stop this massive price hike now is an all-out effort to end Obama’s War on Coal and repeal this destructive regulatory agenda.  The Senate will have a critical opportunity to do just that when it votes on stopping Obama’s most expensive anti-coal regulation sometime in the next couple of weeks. The vote is on the Inhofe Resolution, S.J. Res 37, to overturn the so-called Utility MACT rule, which the EPA itself acknowledges is its most expensive rule ever.  This vote is protected from filibuster, and it will take just 51 votes to send a clear message to Obama that his War on Coal must end. 

Of course, Obama could veto the resolution and keep the rule intact, although that would force him to take full political responsibility for the massive impending jump in electricity prices.

I have a form set up at www.WarOnCoal.com to make it easy to contact your senators on this crucial issue.  Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/22/obamas-war-on-coal-hits-your-electric-bill/print#ixzz1vozhwCgD



http://news.investors.com/Article/598686/201201231850/democrats-want-government-to-decide-reasonable-profits.htm?Ntt=kookoo-kucinich     What metric will the newly established Reasonable Profits Board use to decide what counts as "reasonable"? For some reason, Kucinich's bill is silent on this.  Maybe we can lend a hand. Let's take a look at the raw numbers. Exxon Mobil made $30 billion in 2010. That certainly seems unreasonable. But Chevron only made $19 billion, which is less than AT&T cleared that year. And ConocoPhillips, at $11 billion, made less than GE. So what's unreasonable here?

Well, let's look at profit margins instead. Surely oil companies are making a killing when you use that measure. Trouble is, Exxon's profit margin last year was only 8.6%. Chevron's was 9.7%. Sunoco's was a tiny 0.7%.  Coca-Cola, meanwhile, had a return of almost 34%, Microsoft's was 30%, Google's 29% and Apple's 21.5%. If 8% is unreasonable, then Kucinich and Co. had better get cracking on a bunch more Reasonable Profit Boards.
              In any case, to the extent oil industry profits are "too high," it's the direct result of liberal policies that put massive amounts of oil off limits and kept prices artificially high.  Now to be fair, this idiotic law is backed by just a handful of far-left liberals in the House. It's not like any prominent mainstream Democrat would propose something so dumb.  Er ... except that Barack Obama promised to do pretty much the same thing when he was running for president. And as recently as last fall, he declared that companies "don't have some inherent right just to — you know, get a certain amount of profit."

http://news.investors.com/Article/597853/201201131851/chamber-of-commerce-boosts-keystone-xl-pipeline.htm?Ntt=on-jobs-put-up               "Labor unions and the business community alike are urging President Obama to act in the best interests of our national security and our workers, and approve the pipeline."  It would be in the president's best political interests as well, helping lower energy prices and creating jobs in an economy struggling to do so. Even a number of unions, a major part of the Democratic base, are backing the project.

They include the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Teamsters, the Laborers' International Union, the Building & Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and the United Association of Plumbers & Pipe Fitters for the United States & Canada. They want the jobs Keystone XL would bring.

TransCanada wants to bring those jobs plus 700,000 barrels of Canadian tar sands oil to the U.S.

But another key Democratic constituency — environmentalists — have raised the canard that Keystone XL would endanger the Ogallala Aquifer centered on Nebraska. TransCanada has agreed to a rerouting, but that merely gives the administration an excuse for further review and delay until after the 2012 election.  Keystone XL had already cleared an extensive three-year review and that only presidential politics stood in the way.


     The latest to take notice is the Communications Workers of America union. It reported last month that AT&T's $39 billion bid for T-mobile would have brought 5,000 quality jobs back from overseas and created "as many as 96,000 additional quality jobs in the build-out of high-speed wireless broadband."  Instead, AT&T this week decided to spike its acquisition plans after Obama's Justice Department sued and his Federal Communications Commission came out against it

Terry O'Sullivan, general president of the Laborers' International Union of North America was astonishingly blunt in his response: "The administration chose to support environmentalists over jobs — job-killers win, American workers lose."

And Obama's attacks on the private jet industry caused International Association of Machinists President Tom Buffenbarger to take offense. "In this industry, a few misguided words can put at risk even the ever-so-modest recovery we have experienced." 

You might be next if you vote in Obama and the Democrats.




some Democrats, especially those from oil producing states, were torn between support for the pipeline and their support for the president. The amendment was defeated 56-42, even though 11 Democrats broke ranks to support it. 60 votes were needed for passage.


the reason for soaring gas prices?  According to President Obama, it’s not because of anything he has done: including devaluing the dollar via his disastrous economic decisions with the dollar going down commodity priced in dollars go up, closing federal lands for oil production opened by his predecessor, passing cap-and-trade legislation in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression, or refusing to stand strong against the regime in Iran, which controls 20 percent of all global oil supply via the Strait of Hormuz.

In February 2011, Secretary Chu again embraced the strategy to raise gas prices in order to increase green alternatives to Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, when he said, “The price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up just because of supply and demand issues. And so we see this in the buying habits of Americans as they make choices for the next car they buy.”

President Obama would do well to take the advice of former Sen. Obama, who said in 2006 about possible $3 a gallon gas: “The time for excuses is over.”



http://news.investors.com/article/602312/201202241858/massachusetts-mandates-wind-power-electricity-use.htm?Ntt=massachusetts-tilts-at-windmills     According to the Energy Department, the energy equivalent of $3 natural gas is $18 per barrel oil. Natural gas would seem to be the obvious choice, not wind.



http://news.investors.com/article/603781/201203081907/natural-gas-drilling-endorsed-by-obama-.htm?Ntt=whats-it-all-about-algae        Obama finds himself in the odd position of claiming we can't drill our way out of high gasoline prices as we are drilling ourselves into lower natural gas prices and increased supplies of that fossil fuel.

Democrats claim increasing oil output would have little effect on gasoline prices even as they beg the Saudis to boost their production and tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

While railing against tax incentives for oil companies, the same tax breaks available to all American manufacturers  A new report with a devastating chart from the Congressional Budget Office http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/07/cbo-debunks-myth-that-tax-code-favors-oil-over-renewables/   lays waste to the president's claim that oil companies uniquely or excessively benefit from tax breaks. 

Renewable energy is far more heavily subsidized by tax carve-outs than any other energy sector, including fossil fuels. As Heritage’s David Kreutzer has pointed out, wind energy companies, for instance, get about 1000 times the subsidies that oil companies do, per kilowatt-hour of energy produced.



http://news.investors.com/article/604221/201203131849/obama-restrictive-oil-policies-lead-to-higher-gas-prices.htm?Ntt=the-presidents-stealth-gas-tax        'There's no silver bullet" for high gas prices, the president said Monday. This is utterly false. The "silver bullet" for anything in short supply is to make more of it, which lowers the price — something Obama steadfastly refuses to do with oil.  Obama doesn't want us to get it. Less supply, higher prices, by design. Call it the Obama Gasoline Tax.



rising oil prices made worse by restricted domestic supply have affected the cost of far more things than we realize.  When the railroads and trucks that deliver food to the supermarket pay more for diesel fuel, the added cost shows up when you pay for your groceries at checkout. Look in your closet and you'll find clothing made from petroleum-based fibers, including rayon, nylon and polyester. Look beneath your feet and you'll see petroleum-based carpeting and flooring.

Petroleum is used in agriculture to make fertilizers and pesticides, to run the tractors, threshers and other farm equipment used to raise our food. That food must also be transported via fossil fuel-consuming trucks and trains.  Substituting food for oil in our gas tanks has only compounded the problem and raised food prices even more.

Few people have heard of the everyday price index (EPI). http://www.aier.org/epi          

Unlike the consumer price index (CPI), which measures big-ticket items such as houses, cars and appliances as well as everyday goods, the EPI, a proprietary index developed by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), focuses on the prices of things people buy regularly, if not daily.  The AIER focuses on Americans' typical daily purchases — food, gasoline, child care, prescription drugs, phone and TV service, plus other household products. Over the past year, the EPI is up just over 8%.  The biggest factors: motor fuel and transportation costs that are up 21.1% from a year ago. The CPI, by contrast, is up 2.7%.

Petroleum also affects our national security. The U.S. military spent more than $15.2 billion on energy in 2010, making the Defense Department one of the largest, biggest-spending consumers of fuel and electricity in the country, if not the world.

The rising price of petroleum and its rippling effect on almost everything we buy is a hidden tax increase on the middle class and the working poor — indeed, on everyone and everything.





Among all the factors pushing up prices at the gas pump, the weakness of the U.S. dollar is one of the most important and least discussed. Ultimately, GLOBAL supply and demand set the price of oil, gasoline and all other sources of energy. But the fact that oil is priced globally in dollars also has consequences for American consumers.  When the dollar buys less, Americans pay more for oil. And right now the dollar is weak, its buying power diluted by easy money and huge budget deficits.

Gold is the traditional refuge of investors who are bearish on fiat currencies, the dollar included. So its rise can be a sign that the dollar's appeal as a store of wealth — and ultimately, its buying power — is slipping.





But the Federal Trade Commission and the Government Accountability Office have repeatedly investigated the oil industry for collusion or price gouging after previous price spikes. Each time they've found the same thing: The industry is highly competitive, and GLOBAL supply and demand, not collusion, set the price of oil.  It's the same with speculators. As IBD reported last month, a September 2011 study from the Institute for International Finance found no "clear causal link between financial investment (Speculators) and commodity prices" while the link "between commodity prices and fundamental supply and demand factors is indisputable."

An earlier investigation by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission found the same thing. Not that Obama, or his fellow Democrats or their friends in the mainstream press, will ever explain any of this.  It's also not true Obama is powerless to affect prices.

If he announced an aggressive plan to tap into the nation's vast supplies of oil — enough to last 200 years without imports — the oil market would respond right away by lowering prices. When President Bush said he was going to lift the presidential embargo on offshore drilling, oil prices immediately fell by $9 a barrel.  Obama could also lift the government's boutique fuel rules that have Balkanized the country's gasoline market and pushed up prices, rein in his out-of-control EPA, and work to strengthen the dollar.

To be sure, Obama isn't entirely to blame for high prices — they're also the result of decades of federal mismanagement that have kept huge supplies of oil off limits.  But there's no question that Obama is far more to blame than are the oil companies or speculators currently bearing the brunt of public anger.



Government policies have driven up the price of oil, which has boosted oil companies' total profits. But their profit margins — the best measure of industry profitability — remain modest.

As of the third quarter of last year, the oil industry earned just 6.7 cents per dollar of revenue, less than the average for all manufacturing of 9.2 cents (see chart).

This year, even after a spike in prices, the oil industry ranks 90th in profitability out of 215 industry groups. "Big Oil"? How about "Just Average Oil"?  This is just one of the tricks used by the left to tar the industry, which employs 9.2 million people and accounts for 7.7% of the total U.S. economy.

As for "billions in subsidies" — oil gets $4 billion a year, a drop in a very large bucket, and far less than the $29 billion-plus a year for so-called alternative energy.  Hit the oil industry with higher taxes and punish them with regulations — as the Obama administration proposes to do — and you will hurt economic growth and kill potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Further, Obama's charge that oil companies pay "a lower tax rate" than "most other companies" is simply false. Oil and gas companies in 2010, the last year for which all data are available, paid 41.1% of their net income on income taxes. That compares with 26.5% for other industrial companies listed by Standard & Poor's.  And it doesn't include oil industry payments of rent, royalties and leases to the government, which have totaled $100 billion since 2000. Nor does it include $2 trillion in oil industry investments since 2000.

Demonizing profits is foolish. Profits signal companies that they need to produce more. Profits encourage the industry to use the most efficient, clean methods possible, and to boost pay for their workers and dividends for their investors. Aren't these good?

Mutual funds today own an estimated 30% of all oil shares, while pension funds hold 27%, individuals 23% and IRAs 14%. Basically, anyone who owns a mutual fund or a broad retirement portfolio almost certainly owns oil shares. They all benefit from higher profits.  As turns out, Big Oil isn't some abstract entity. It's you.









Additionally, oil, natural gas, and coal received 64 cents per megawatt hour in subsidies, while wind power alone received $56.29 per megawatt hour. That's 100 times what fossil fuels got.

By the way, the so-called subsidies that Obama is talking about are really depreciation write-offs for investment. Oil companies get a 6% deduction from income. Most manufacturing industries get 9%. And every company in the economy is eligible for faster investment write-offs.

Frankly, the most pro-growth corporate-tax policy would be 100% cash-expensing for new investment, a slashed corporate tax rate, and no more subsidies, preferences and carve-outs. That would be a huge job-creator.  But Obama is too busy spewing falsehoods to support his ideological agenda than to take account of the facts.




First, no one sends tax dollars to the oil industry. Yes, the industry gets tax breaks. But they're the same write-offs used to offset the costs of doing business that Washington has made available to every industry.

There's no transfer of money from taxpayers to industry. No corporate welfare. The policies that Obama maligns as subsidies simply allow businesses to keep more of their own money.

Despite Obama's clear implication, there are no subsidies or tax breaks carved out specifically for Big Oil. It gets no direct government spending and no loan guarantees. Those are reserved for politically correct, politically connected green energy companies, the Solyndras that go out of business, fail to produce a single kilowatt of energy, or both.

What Obama is agitating for are policies that discriminate against big oil companies. He wants to treat them differently, to punish them for no other reason than they've become a favorite villain of the political left that's socked with new taxes after being stripped of write-offs every other industry would still get.  He's a bit late to the party, though. Policies that discriminate against Big Oil are already on the books. For instance, every taxpayer that qualifies is eligible for a tax deduction of 9% on income derived from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the U.S. — every industry, that is, except oil and gas, where the deduction is 6%.

There's also the intangible drilling-costs deduction — the industry's version of the research-and-development deduction that every other American company can take advantage of. Under this policy, companies that explore for and produce oil can deduct 100% of drilling costs associated with exploration operations.  But integrated companies — those "Big Oil" companies that explore, produce, refine and distribute and are lumped under pejorative "Big Oil" — are able to deduct only 70%.





A few weeks ago it was revealed at least 32 coal-fired power plants in 12 states, including West Virginia and Ohio, would be closed so utility companies could comply with the Obama administration's air pollution regulations. On the list was the Kammer Plant near Moundsville.

Last week FirstEnergy announced it would close three West Virginia power plants later this year, along with six in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, for the same reason.

Environmental Protection Agency officials are pressing utilities to replace 25 percent of their coal-fired generating capacity by 2014. That may not be possible, but it is an indication Obama's EPA is attempting to wreck the coal industry before anyone can stop it.

A few days ago, American Electric Power President and Chief Executive Officer Nick Akins said complying with EPA mandates will drive power costs up by at least 10-25 percent. AEP serves 5.3 million customers in 11 states.

On the heels of all that came a disturbing report from the North American Electric Reliability Corp., which works to ensure the nation's power grid is fed by enough generating plants to avoid interruptions in service. EPA regulations "are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next one to five years," the NAERC reported.


http://news.investors.com/article/609419/201204261900/white-house-protects-epa-official-who-would-crucify-oil-companies.htm?Ntt=regulating-oil-the-epa-way               EPA regional administrator for Dallas Al Armendariz told a city council meeting in a taped speech two years ago that his "philosophy" of enforcement was to single out an oil company, punish it "as hard as you can," and make an example of it to scare others into submission.

"The Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean," said Armendariz. "They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years."

Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, who first exposed the tape, called it part of "Obama's war on domestic energy," and said an investigation is needed.  "Totalitarian" may seem extreme, but Armendariz said in the same speech his proudest moment in his first year at EPA was to have its enforcers watch "Gasland," an anti-fracking propaganda documentary financed by the government of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who also opposes all U.S. drilling. Armendariz collaborated with its makers, and got his name in the credits.




Energy is the lifeblood of the mighty U.S. economy, and it ought to surprise no one that America's enemies know this. One way to neutralize the U.S. is to hurt its ability to produce its own energy.

Soros is known to fund Tides in the U.S. Canada's TransCanada is proposing to end 40% of U.S. overseas oil dependency with its Keystone XL pipeline. Both Tides Canada and the Obama administration have lined up against it.

Venezuelan petrotyrant Hugo Chavez's Foundation National Cinematheque bankrolled a scurrilous anti-fracking documentary called "Gasland" that was nominated for an Academy Award, exploiting Hollywood's leftist gullibility. The meritless anti-fracking documentary also was screened in the Environmental Protection Agency by Al Armendariz, the EPA official who resigned last week after declaring his "philosophy" of environmental enforcement was to "crucify" oil companies.

Hillary Clinton's State Department also showcased the anti-energy propaganda film. Why is the U.S. paying any attention at all to Chavista propaganda?

Energy security is more than technology and supply, as conventional wisdom has it — it's our freedom to innovate and produce. They're trying to stop that.





On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show: President Obama is the CEO of the Executive Branch, and yet none of the problems the country faces are apparently his fault, especially not the energy problems. Even though we have audio from the President saying that he will drive up the price of electricity in order to cap greenhouse emissions from coal mines, it's still not his fault.

He appointed Energy Secretary Chu.  He appointed Treasury Secretary Tax Cheat Geithner who is weakening the dollar, so as the dollar goes down, commodity prices go up,  He is for cap and trade, he has limited drilling and energy production, and has constantly attacked the oil companies, yet he believes he's still not responsible. They create shortages and make instability in the marketplace while at the same time sabotaging the private sector and hurting the individual. Also, Harry Reid is the laziest Senate Majority Leader in history - what good has he done to advance the cause of liberty?



Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu is on a mission to proliferate the use of clean energy no matter the cost to American taxpayers. In 2008, Obama’s Secretary Chu told the Wall Street Journal, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Even worse, according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, President Obama never asked Secretary Chu to walk back his comments. Today, the average gallon of gas in Europe costs more than $8.

Obama pitchs $52M plan to regulate oil markets

You Tube
Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket (2008)

You Tube
Obama's Promise the Bankrupt the Coal Industry (2008)

You Tube
Obama Wanted High Gas Prices...Gradually (2008)

Obama Announces New ‘Oil-Market Manipulator’ Hunt Four Years Straight

Real Clear Politics
CNN At WH Briefing: Do You Have Proof Of Illegal Activity In Oil Markets?




Last week, former Democrat Tennessee Congressman, Harold Ford Jr. appeared on Meet the Press and spoke out against the President’s plan to increase taxes on U.S. oil companies.

Since he is not an elected official, he apparently felt more at ease saying what most Energy Citizens have known all along – “Calling for higher taxes may bring applause at partisan political events, but it won’t lower energy prices.” In addition, he stated one of the most important parts of this issue – that the tax deduction “does not go to a guy called Exxon Mobil” – this deduction is benefits the millions of Americans who are shareholders or who hold oil and natural gas shares as part of their 401k.  (Here is the full transcript of the broadcast; the energy discussion is toward the end.)  This is a continuation of the message Congressman Ford sent to President Obama in a recent Wall Street Journal oped. In it he urged the president to support domestic oil and natural gas production, reform taxes on energy companies instead of raising them, and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.  Congressman Ford is right. It would be nice if all politicians could put aside party rhetoric and decide energy policy issues, like Keystone XL and oil sands development, based on the facts and not what they think their supporters want to hear.




Shortly after taking office, President Obama gutted a $1.2 billion Bush administration R&D program designed to bring hydrogen-fueled cars to market.

But Obama decided instead to invest billions of dollars in electric cars — a technology that dates back more than 150 years but has yet to succeed commercially.

The episode stands in stark contrast to the president's depiction of his energy policies as ones that "invest in stuff that's new" and "stop subsidizing stuff that's old."

In fact, several of Obama's energy priorities are very "old stuff," much of it predating the gasoline engine, and little finding much commercial success despite massive public investments.

A little history:

Electric cars. The first electric cars actually predate those powered by gasoline. In fact, it wasn't until the early 1900s that gas-powered cars came to dominate, as their advantages over battery-powered engines became increasingly obvious.

Advanced batteries. Battery technology, too, is "old stuff," invented by Alessandro Volta in 1800. Batteries have improved greatly, but still have serious limitations. And Obama's heavy investment in advanced batteries has produced decidedly mixed results. One company, Ener1, sought bankruptcy protection after getting $118 million in federal grants. Ener1 exited bankruptcy last week.

High-speed rail. The first passenger train ran between Swansea and Mumbles in England in March 1807. More than 200 years later, passenger rail in the U.S. has failed, except in a few areas, to be commercially viable.

Wind energy. Charles Brush built the first wind generator in the U.S. in 1888. Twenty years later, there were 72 in operation in the country. By the 1930s they were common on farms. But wind power continues to be far more expensive than other sources of energy — up to 290% more expensive than natural gas powered plants, according to the Energy Information Administration. It can also be less reliable — with winds tending to diminish on hot days when electricity demand spikes, for example.

Solar power. Discovery of the photovoltaic effect dates back to 1839. William J. Bailley invented the first solar collector in 1908, and Bell Labs scientists built the first solar cell able to power everyday electrical equipment in 1954. But after decades of research and development, solar power continues to cost far more than traditional plants, according to the EIA. Like wind, solar power is erratic. And it requires vast tracts of land.




the only thing imaginative about Obama's energy plans is how he's managed to recycle most of them from Jimmy Carter's playbook without anyone noticing. And we all know how well Carter's plan worked out.  Here's just a sampling of quotes from Carter and Obama speeches on energy. Notice any similarities?

Carter: We can't substantially increase our domestic production. The cost will keep going up.

Obama: We can't just drill our way to lower gas prices.

Carter: We must face an unpleasant fact about energy prices. They are going up, whether we pass an energy program or not.

Obama: Anybody who says we can get gas down to 2bucks a gallon just isn't telling the truth.

Carter: We are running out of gas and oil.

Obama: We cannot sustain a future powered by a fuel that is rapidly disappearing.

Carter: We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil.

Obama: If we really want energy security and energy independence, we've got to start looking at how we use less oil.

Carter: We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

Obama: With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil.

Carter: I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20% of our energy coming from solar power.

Obama: I want to make sure when these guys are grown up that they're seeing solar panels all across the country.





With Washington out of the way, the oil-rich states of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Montana can unlock their resources that have been trapped by Washington, which itself is captive to radical environmental interests.

The most recent Sagebrush Rebellion began in the 1970s when Western states tried to break Washington's tight control over public lands within their borders. While running for the White House in 1980, Ronald Reagan told supporters at a stop in Salt Lake City to "count me in as a rebel."

The rebels had a legitimate grievance. But the movement didn't net much. Washington still owns wide swaths of the West. (See map.) Among the Western states, only in Montana (29.9%) does the federal government own less than 30% of the land.  Today's rebellion through legislation might not fare much better, as Washington will likely ignore the Utah law as well as any others that might be passed and signed. At least until the courts order it to comply.

Even if the federal government only partially lost its land-baron status in the West, the states would ramp up their energy production on the tracts that would be back under their stewardship. That would mean economic growth, a spike in jobs and increased government revenue in those states.

It would mean relief at the pump, as well, as the markets would respond by lowering prices in anticipation of a growing supply.





the video recounts a number of disastrous energy policies currently being pursued by our Obama and Democrat government which are stifling growth and hampering the economy.

From smothering entrepreneurship under pages of red tape, to throwing good money after bad on unproven green energy companies, it’s clear the Obama Administration’s energy policies have failed and, as the video above suggests, are working against America’s best interests.




http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/529211/201004011912/Hiding-NASA-Decline.aspx                               Meteorologist Anthony Watts, on his http://www.surfacestations.org/ SurfaceStations.org, has documented the inaccuracy of weather station data used by NASA. Watts says that "90% of them don't meet (the government's) old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence."  As we've reported, many U.S. stations are in places such as paved driveways, near rooftop exhaust vents, even near idling jet engines.  The number of weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures has declined from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 currently. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org           Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that says, in part, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

http://petitionproject.org/index.php                           In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

Moreover, the current totals of 31,487 signers, including 9,029 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for printing and postage, these numbers would be much higher.



http://news.investors.com/article/600855/201202101833/canadian-keystone-xl-oil-to-china-.htm?Ntt=tale-of-two-pipelines                    There is still hope that bipartisan legislation has been introduced that approves the Keystone XL pipeline through Congress under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, commonly known as the Commerce Clause, instead of through executive approval. The bill is sponsored by Sens. John Hoeven, R-N.D., Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and David Vitter, R-La. James Inhofe, R-Okla., is also one of the 44 co-sponsors.  As Sen. Hoeven, whose home state is booming thanks to the oil in the Bakken shale formation, states: "This legislation would approve Keystone XL under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That provision — the Commerce Clause — gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries, and that is the authority Congress needs to use, just as Congress used that authority in 1973 to approve the Alaskan Pipeline."  Thankfully that bill passed, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built and the oil riches of Prudhoe Bay have fueled much of the American economy for almost four decades. Keystone XL would run through North Dakota, and plans exist to link the Bakken oil fields to it.


http://news.investors.com/article/601292/201202151830/obama-nuclear-warhead-cuts-are-irrational-.htm?Ntt=foolishly-applying-gun                Just as liberals think that guns, not criminals, cause crime, foes of American exceptionalism such as President Obama believe it is nuclear weapons that threaten the world, not the tyrants who possess them.  They believe the once-unrivaled arsenal of democracy is really just the instigator of arms races. In the past, we would decide what we need to meet obvious threats. Obama seems to be saying let's disarm and the threats will just go away.

As the world's only effective defender of freedom and democracy, the U.S. has a slightly different mission statement and military needs than Russia, China or the rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.  To morally equate us with them is like saying there's no difference between cops and criminals because they both carry guns, so let's put restrictions on the guns.

In a 2009 speech in Prague, Obama spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.  While Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons, and moves steadily toward unilateral disarmament of our arsenal, we envision a world without tyrants and thugs willing to use them against us.

We do not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France, countries that share our love of freedom and democracy.


http://news.investors.com/article/600740/201202091913/climate-change-not-melting-himalayan-ice.htm?Ntt=hima-lyin                         GRACE, which was launched as a joint project between NASA and Germany in 2002, orbits the earth at an altitude of 500 kilometers (315 miles), so it sees everything from the highest peaks down to the mouths of glaciers. The satellite measures gravity, which is related to mass, and would be affected by decreases in polar ice, glaciers or mountain snow packs.  The new study, the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers made possible by the use of satellite data, acknowledges some glacial melting at lower altitudes. But it also says that over the study period enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate — meaning no net loss of ice.

Richard S. Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at M.I.T., has said "the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average" in the interior and that a "likely result of all this is that increased pressure is pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country," giving greenies ominous photo-ops.

Greenland was definitely warmer when Eric the Red settled there in 986. The climate then supported the Viking way of life based upon cattle, hay, grain and herring for about 300 years, predating the Industrial Revolution.  But then came the Little Ice Age, and by 1400 average temperatures had declined by about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, and the advancing glaciers doomed the Viking colony in Greenland.  Doomed by global cooling.




            Thousands have signed the Oregon Petition, the Leipzig Declaration and the Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, three efforts that challenge the claim of a scientific consensus on global warming. Four years ago a group of more than 100 dissenting scientists wrote a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon complaining that:

"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers" that "are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and nonscientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation ... are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives

"The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts."

Giaever is not the only scientist to quit the APS for its rigid position on warming. Physicist Hal Lewis, who has since died, resigned in October of last year.  "Global warming," Lewis wrote, "is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life." There, in a mere 17 words, he summed up the climate change scare.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532610   Cap-and-trade is not about saving the planet. It's about money and power, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.


    Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study  The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the ‘Little Ice Age,’ approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it.  The research was recently published online in the journal Earth And Planetary Science Letters and will appear in print on April 1.




Author and talk-show host Brian Sussman, a meteorologist, the author of


“Climategate” and an upcoming release called “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America,”.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532610        Twenty-five people have been arrested in raids by British and German authorities as part of a pan-European crackdown on carbon credit VAT tax fraud.  U.K. officials announced raids on 81 offices and homes, nabbing 13 people in England and eight in Scotland. The operation involved 450 investigators from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs office.  German authorities raided 230 locations, including the headquarters of Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt and the offices of RWE, one of the largest energy firms in Europe. The German operation involved 1,000 investigators targeting 50 companies and 150 suspects.




 The Crash Of The Climate Exchange  Posted 11/09/2010 06:51 PM ET Climate Fraud: As the case for global warming and cap-and-trade has collapsed, so too has the market that was to exploit this manufactured crisis for fun and profit. The climate-change bubble has burst.Lost in the hubbub leading up to the Republican and Tea Party tsunami on Nov. 2 was the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). But its implications for the future of the American economy and the business climate are staggering: It is an acknowledgment that both the case for climate trade and cap-and-tax legislation has also collapsed.On Oct. 21 the exchange announced it was ending carbon trading, which, as Pajamas Media's Steve Milloy points out, was "the only purpose for which it was founded." Launched as a "voluntary" method of trading "carbon credits," CCX rested on the hope that cap-and-tax legislation would make such trading mandatory — and profitable.  CCX billed itself as "North America's only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide." Barack Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002, when it issued CCX start-up grants. Presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett also once sat on the Joyce board. As president, cap-and-trade is one of Obama's highest priorities.The exchange's founder, Richard Sandor, says he knew Obama as far back as when the Joyce Foundation awarded money to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was research professor. He estimated that climate trading could be "a $10 trillion market," which it very well might have been if cap-and-trade legislation like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer made into law. But now, in the wake of Climate-gate and other scandals, as well as recent election results, that's an unlikely event.  For his efforts, Sandor was named as one of Time magazine's "Heroes of the Planet" in 2002 and one of its "Heroes of the Environment" in 2007. Sanders eventually sold his 16.5% stake in CCX for $98.5 million, making him a hero of take-the-money-and-run.The biggest losers are CCX's two biggest investors, Al Gore's Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs, that champion of sound money management that serves as the farm team for administration staffing.  Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. In 2006, CCX received a big boost when another investor purchased a 10% stake on the prospect of making a great deal of money for itself. That investor was Goldman Sachs, accused of selling financial instruments it knew were doomed to fail.A mechanism for extending carbon trading on the exchange to residences was purchased and patented by none other than Franklin Raines, who was CEO of Fannie Mae at the time. Raines profited to the tune of some $90 million by buying and bundling bad mortgages that led to the collapse of the American economy.His interest in climate trading is curious until one realizes cap-and-trade would make housing, like energy, more costly. Cap-and-trade and carbon regulation extended down to the homeowner level would have raised the cost of homes and homeownership and made him richer that way and through his patent.  CCX's collapse was inevitable as both the enthusiasm for cap-and-trade — and the world itself — cooled. After the e-mail exchanges from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveled the extent to which global climate data were being manipulated to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, hopes for profiting off the scam with another scam evaporated.Nor did the global recession create a hospitable environment for pushing another job-killing Kyoto-style agreement. People were lining up for jobs, not electric cars, and bills such as the House-passed Waxman-Markey suddenly were going nowhere. Carbon trading at CCX all but dried up as prices plunged from over $7 a ton in 2008 to just 10 cents as of August.  Like Dracula, cap-and-tax may yet rise from the grave. Anything can happen in the lame-duck session, and the EPA still conspires to regulate carbon and other emissions through the back door. Still, CCX's carbon-trading demise is reassuring evidence that eventually all houses of cards will collapse.

Greens With Envy Posted 02/08/2011 07:09 PM ET Climate: Congressional Republicans want a lower court ruling that lets states and environmental groups sue utilities over CO2 emissions thrown out. Which makes this a good time to revisit the carbon question.  In 2009, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a federal district judge in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, a case in which eight states, the city of New York and environmental groups were told by that judge they could not file a public nuisance lawsuit against utilities over their greenhouse gas emissions.The Supreme Court took the case in December. While the justices roll it around in their minds, three GOP congressional leaders filed a brief with the Court on Monday asking it to reverse the appeals court's ruling.  The suit is not without problems. There are legal issues as well as grave financial and political considerations. But for now, we'll focus on carbon dioxide.Though the Environmental Protection Agency, driven by eco-lunacy, says CO2 is a pollutant, the description doesn't fit. To categorize it as a nuisance is nonsense.  Fossil fuel combustion does emit some pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.But carbon dioxide is not one of them. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that's necessary for life on this planet. Humans and animals exhale it. Plants inhale it. If it were a contaminant, which is a fair definition of a pollutant, we'd have no life on Earth.To hear environmentalists talk about CO2, one would think it was the predominant gas in our atmosphere, which it was at one time. But today it is only a small fraction, less than four hundred parts per million (0.038%), and roughly 97% of it is naturally occurring.To understand the extent of human CO2 emissions, picture a pingpong table. That represents Earth's atmosphere. Throw a silver dollar onto the table. That represents the CO2 in the atmosphere. Now cut off 97% of that silver dollar. What's left is the equivalent of man's contribution of CO2.Carbon dioxide is also a weak greenhouse gas. Water vapor is much stronger and is present in the atmosphere in about the same degree as CO2. Methane is roughly 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide, though it makes up a much smaller slice of the atmosphere.Despite these facts, the environmental left is obsessed with CO2 emissions. Actually, the obsession is with the machines that emit CO2. The eco-lobby, mad with envy, detests signs of wealth, such as luxury cars and big homes and happily misleads the public to achieve its goal — the dismantling of the modern world economy.  That's why we've had to endure the great carbon scare of the last 20 years.

 The Airhead At EPA Posted 03/02/2011 06:43 PM ET Regulation: The head of the Environmental Protection Agency's office of air and radiation admits she doesn't know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. How can someone so ignorant have such an important job?  It's not like Gina McCarthy has no experience in environmental policy. Her EPA bio says she's been commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and "worked at both the state and local levels on critical environmental issues."McCarthy even "has extensive experience with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the nation's first market-based greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system," as well as a "master of science in environmental health engineering and planning and policy from Tufts University."  Yet when Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, asked McCarthy on Tuesday during a House hearing if she knew what the atmospheric CO2 level was, she admitted that she didn't, reports Steven Milloy of junkscience.com.This is knowledge that even the after-hours cleanup crew at the EPA building should have. That the person who could be considered America's top greenhouse gas regulator couldn't answer the question is inexcusable.  It's a good bet that by now an embarrassed McCarthy does know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere — unless her staff is as ignorant as she is. If that's the case, we can help: The CO2 level in our atmosphere is roughly 391 parts per million — a number readily available through the most primitive of Web searches.But McCarthy has better things to do than gather facts related to her job. She's too busy regulating human-caused emissions of the very substance of which she apparently has less-than-rudimentary knowledge.  Just as they seem to know what the Earth's temperature should be, global warmongers also pretend to know the appropriate level of CO2 in our atmosphere. Some years ago they said 350 parts per million was the top limit for human safety.But that's not what the scientific community believes. Some researchers — climatology professor Robert Balling, for instance — make a compelling case that increased CO2 will create a greener, lusher planet.Isn't that what environmentalists want? Or is the global warming scare simply a cover intended to allow the political left to impose their anti-capitalist, freedom-choking ideas on the rest of us?  The campaign against global warming is raw, media-aided politics hiding behind the facade of science. McCarthy's ignorance only confirms this. Her job is to push a political agenda, not expand knowledge.  She and people like her should be in Washington only as tourists, not as lawmakers and bureaucrats who have power over others' lives.

 Stop EPA's Energy Tax Posted 02/10/2011 07:07 PM ET   SummarizedFederal Authority: At a contentious hearing on legislation to keep the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, Republicans rightly called global warming a power-grabbing hoax that is all pain for no gain.  The assertion came at a Wednesday hearing before the House subcommittee on energy and power on the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011." The measure is designed to reassert the authority of Congress to levy taxes on the American people and direct public policy — powers that are being usurped by the unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency.In a power grab that rivals ObamaCare in audacity and job-killing effects, the EPA has claimed unto itself the power to regulate carbon dioxide, a byproduct of human and animal respiration and the basis for all life on earth, as a pollutant. At least with ObamaCare, Congress — our representatives — voted to pass it.The EPA claims science has given it the justification, and the Supreme Court has given it the authority, to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and impose regulations governing virtually every aspect of American business and our daily life almost down to our lawn mowers.  Inhofe rightly noted that Congress deliberately did not regulate so-called greenhouse gases with the Clean Air Act, a bill that was designed to deal with air quality, not climate change.Inhofe disputed this, saying that while the Supreme Court said the EPA had the discretion to "decide whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare," it did not authorize draconian regulations based on flawed science, regulations that would impose an economy-crushing hidden tax on businesses, energy producers and American consumers.Inhofe said he was there to question EPA's authority, not the science. But he did point out that the agency's own analysis found that its regulations covering CO2 from cars would by 2100 reduce global temperatures by 0.006 degree Celsius, an amount almost too small to measure or matter.In his opening remarks, Inhofe also noted that Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research found that even full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases, including action by the U.S., Europe, Canada, Russia and others, would reduce global temperatures no more than 0.21 degree Celsius by 2100.

Not along ago Inhofe related on a YouTube video: "Lisa Jackson, Obama's EPA administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action ... (issuing its CO2 endangerment finding) in good measure on the findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true."  The EPA's dangerous policy is based on flawed science that contradicts the intent of Congress and usurps its power, and its authority must be stopped. We count ourselves among those yearning to breathe free.  http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/562838/201102101907/Stop-EPAs-Energy-Tax.aspx





  http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566397/201103171834/Unions-Join-In-Challenging-EPA.aspx               Now unions and some of the Democrats they support are demanding the EPA be reined in. As we've learned from Wisconsin, hell hath no fury like a union in fear of losing jobs, benefits and, most important, union dues.


 Recently a coalition of labor groups wrote in a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson that imposing the new EPA regulations would lead to "significant job losses around the country."

An analysis by the United Mine Workers union said that putting coal mining in the EPA's cross hairs could put at risk as many as 250,000 jobs in electoral-vote-rich Rust Belt states.

The United Steelworkers union wrote in an August letter that "tens of thousands" of jobs at factories whose employees are represented by the union "will be imperiled" by the EPA's regulatory onslaught.  Democrats — already nervous about 2012, when 23 of their senators are up for re-election — have joined the fray. One of the 23, Missouri's Claire McCaskill, joined some of her colleagues in a letter to the EPA complaining about an agency proposal to tighten the definition of unhealthy ozone levels.

"The people in my state want clean air and clean water, but farmers and businesses in our state don't want nonsensical regulations that harm their ability to make a living," she said in a subsequent interview.

It didn't help when a report from bank Credit Suisse last September said the EPA's mercury rule alone could lead to the closure of nearly 18% of the nation's coal-fired generating capacity. This rule is based in part on claims of linkages between mercury and autism that have been thoroughly debunked.


November 28, 2011   Keystone XL vs. Solyndra

The two big energy stories of the moment are the Obama administration's announcement that it will wait another year before making a final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, and the continued pummeling of the Department of Energy and Energy Secretary Steven Chu for their handling of the $529 million loan guarantee to Solyndra.  A comparison of these two projects, in the context of the Obama administration's decision to fund one and delay the other, is enlightening: it allows the American public to understand the priorities of the president and the motivations for his policies, says Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

The Keystone XL is a $13 billion project that doesn't depend on federal loan guarantees or production tax credits from the federal government.  Keystone could create about 13,000 construction jobs in the United States, along with 7,000 manufacturing jobs -- this contrasts strongly with the 1,100 workers who lost their jobs with the Solyndra bankruptcy.  Keystone would have supplied 700,000 barrels of oil each day towards the nation's energy mix (which is 37 percent oil).

In these terms, it becomes bewildering that the Keystone XL pipeline is being subjected to another year's worth of scrutiny despite its numerous benefits, while Solyndra was able to receive a public loan without a thorough look at its ability to compete in an international marketplace.  The egregiousness of this pair of decisions becomes even more serious when discussing each project's contribution to national energy.

The Keystone's 700,000 barrels of oil each day, at 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel, would have generated 380,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.  Meanwhile, all of America's solar panel and wind turbine production for the last year amounted to 94.6 million megawatt-hours, translating to 260,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.  Therefore, the Keystone project would have generated 46 percent more energy each day than the entire country's solar and wind output.

Source: Robert Bryce, "Energy Smackdown: Keystone XL vs. Solyndra," National Review, November 21, 2011.  For text:  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283587/energy-smackdown-keystone-xl-vs-solyndra-robert-bryce?pg=1


http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/contact-congress           The Open Fuel Standard Act is very much needed legislation—especially at this point in time. With the return of increased gas prices due to OPEC’s standard manipulation, as well as the Iranian regime’s dangerous game- playing using oil as a negotiating tool, it’s time for us to finally sever OPEC’s chokehold. The OFS Act will move us in that direction. Brazil has already done it successfully and other nations are moving in the same direction.
              While there certainly are numerous valid approaches to transportation fuel independence (most of which we fully support), the Open Fuel Standard legislation is the easiest first step. At zero cost to the Federal Government, and only $70 to $100 per vehicle, passage of the OFS Act will finally provide Americans a choice when filling up their gas tanks—just like we all have a choice for every other product offered to us. It will allow free market capitalism to be applied to the transportation fuel industry—something that currently does not exist.   We must finally cut the cord that keeps us dependent on wealthy dictators and Islamist nations for our gasoline. Further, we must stop funding Islamist terrorists every time we fill up our gas tanks. Passage of the Cantwell/Lugar Amendment is our opportunity to do so.   Please take a moment today to send your U.S. Senator an e-mail of support for the Cantwell/Lugar OFS amendment. Simply click on the Alert titled
“Cantwell/Lugar OFS Amendment” and follow the simple directions!




This Week's Quote <




In fact, he'll readily admit he's a "mama's boy." But not the stereotypical wimpy whiner!   To be sure, my strapping high school senior does not want or need his mom to do things for him. He knows his way around the kitchen and the laundry room as well as the garage and the basement workroom. He's equally proficient at cleaning a bathroom as he is cleaning a shotgun.  But he's also unafraid to admit that he and I are emotionally close, and he doesn't see this as a sign of weakness but rather, as a matter of pride.









      While there is no disputing the destructive impact the largest solar superstorm would have on the power grid, and consequently on society and the economy, it turns out that even a smaller storm could have profoundly negative effects. A few years ago, a study commissioned from the scientific research firm Metatech by multiple federal government agencies calculated the effects of a once in 100 year type of superstorm on the electrical grid, should the EMP generated by such a storm hit the earth’s atmosphere over North America. The study showed that a storm this size could cause the failure of enough large transformers to lead to a total or near total breakdown of the U.S. power grid, if its EMP impacted the magnetic field over the northern part of tour country. For your information, the last one-in-100 year solar storm occurred in 1921, which means that we are less than a decade away from the arrival of the next one, assuming the normal historical pattern holds.





A simple Scud missile, with a nuclear warhead, could be fired from an inconspicuous freighter in international waters off our coast and detonated high over the U.S. It would wreak devastation on America's technological, electrical and transportation infrastructure.

Peter Vincent Pry, an expert on EMP who sits on a congressional panel looking into the threat of such a weapon, "was a ship-launched EMP attack against the U.S. by Iran, as this would eliminate the need for Iran to develop an ICBM to deliver a nuclear warhead against the U.S. and could be executed clandestinely, taking the U.S. by surprise."

As he notes, a single nuclear warhead, detonated at the right altitude, would interact with the Earth's atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the surface at the speed of light.  Nobody would be harmed or killed immediately by the blast. But life in the world's largest economy and only superpower would come to a screeching halt as a nation dependent on cutting-edge technology instantly regresses in time by almost a century.

'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?" Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked at "The World Without Zionism" Tehran conference in 2005. "But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved." He added that Iran had a "war preparation plan" for, as he put it, "the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."

Electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, is not a subject familiar to most Americans. But it's quite familiar to the Iranian military.  It's been practicing for the day when an Iranian missile tipped with a nuclear warhead lifts off from a vessel parked in international waters off our shores, the warhead detonating high above the American heartland, sending electromagnetic waves rippling across the American landscape, frying every electronic circuit within range.

In a July 18 statement, Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari said the Iranian navy plans on deploying warships in the Atlantic Ocean as part of a program to ply international waters. Two days later, another Iranian rear admiral, Seyed Mahmoud Mousavi, revealed for the first time that his navy has equipped a number of its logistic vessels and units with long-range missiles.




This threat to our national security was the subject of study by the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, established by unanimous consent of the House and Senate. Released on the same day as the 9/11 Commission report, few paid attention.

It is a scenario worthy of Hollywood, but it is a frighteningly real possibility. A solitary ballistic missile, perhaps an ICBM launched by a decaying North Korean regime or an Iranian mullah, or a terrorist Scud launched from a ship off the Atlantic Coast carrying the first Islamic nuke, detonates its warhead 25 to 300 miles above the U.S. mainland.  Nobody is harmed or killed immediately by the blast.        But life in America, the world's only superpower and largest economy, comes to a screeching halt as a country dependent on 21st-century technology regresses almost a century instantaneously.

The radiation from such a high-altitude nuclear blast would interact with air molecules to produce high-energy electrons that would race along the earth's magnetic field in a pulse strong enough to disrupt power grids, electronic systems and communications.  And that's just for starters.

Millions could die as hospital systems shut down and rail and air traffic control systems collapse. Farmers wouldn't be able to harvest crops, and distributors couldn't get goods to market.

Energy production would cease. Computers and PCs would become large paperweights. Telephones, even cellphones, wouldn't work. Electronic records would be inaccessible, if they survived.

As Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., notes: "A terrorist organization might have trouble putting a nuclear warhead on target with a Scud, but it would be much easier to simply launch and detonate in the atmosphere. . .. Just launch a cheap missile from a freighter in international waters — al-Qaida is believed to own about 80 such vessels — and make sure to get it a few miles in the air."

Iran has long practiced launching Scuds from ships in the Caspian Sea and detonating them in midflight. It has also tested high-altitude explosions of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile, a test consistent with an EMP attack.  The warhead need not be of a staggeringly high yield; the missile need not have an intercontinental range. The plan only awaits a working nuke, something Tehran gets closer to every day.

Iran's Shahab-3 is a midrange mobile missile and small enough to be transported in the hold of a freighter.




The Congressional Budget Office states that it costs taxpayers $1.78 every time a gallon of ethanol replaces a gallon of gasoline.  President Ronald Reagan once said, “governments tend not to solve problems, only rearrange them.”  Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2012/08/corporate-welfare-hurts-everyone/#ixzz23XMVLIzs




It was Forstchen who described the impact of a nuclear bomb exploding somewhere in the skies over the U.S. Electronics would simply be disintegrated, he said.  Computers would cease functioning, and every system that relies on those components – food and fuel deliveries, communications, production, manufacturing, travel and everything associated – would halt.

Forstchen cited a 2004 study on the impact of such an assault on America.  “Testimony in that study said 90 percent, let me repeat that, 90 percent of all Americans would die within 12-18 months of an EMP attack,” he said.  Kahlili warns that Iran already has been practicing with missile launches from ships that simply put the payload straight up and high in the sky.  “That is the signature … of training for an EMP launch.”  Kahlili confirmed it would take only 60 seconds for such a warhead to be launched, and the result would “destabilize the infrastructure of America within hours.”  The analysis points out that such an attack would cause airplanes to fall from the sky and, as cities generally have a food supply of only 21 to 28 days, destroy the nation by starvation.



Congressman Bartlett is one of the few scientists in Congress, and has been advocating the U.S. do more to protect the nation from the effects from an EMP.  In 1995, he convened the first unclassified hearing on EMP. He and 22 other members of the House also co-sponsored the SHIELD Act, standing for “Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage” Act.  An EMP from nuclear missiles is not the only threat facing the U.S.  Dr. Lowell Wood of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has also referred to “God’s EMP,” which is associated with solar storms. It’s estimated the cost to protect the transformers would be between $100 to $200 million, less than $1 per life. The cost to protect the entire electrical grid would be $1 billion to $2 billion.  It is critical to protect these transformers since the technology to replace this equipment resides in China, Japan and Germany.  Launching a protective response to an EMP is problematic at best. The only real defense is to harden what we have.  The EMP Commission, a panel established by Congress, has written that “EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/whom-will-you-call-when-emp-shuts-down-u-s/     The Northeast Blackout of August 2003 was a sign of the grid’s vulnerability. High summer temperatures stretched high-voltage lines until they sagged onto overgrown tree branches, and the result zap caused a two-day blackout. The tree limbs, in effect, shut down over 100 power plants, deprived more than 55 million people of power and cost the national economy $6 billion, according to the 2004 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force.

Fortunately, the 48-hour blackout did not cause many deaths. There were some heat-related deaths and a few people died in carbon monoxide poisonings as a result of running generators in their homes or from fires started from candles.  But the effects did not end there. Television and radio stations went off the air, traffic lights and train switching stations went off-line, causing a transportation gridlock that turned highways into parking lots. Water treatment plants went offline as their water tanks emptied and their water lines lost pressure, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without potable water.

An EMP-generated power outage would be much worse. Much, much worse.  Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a former member of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States and president of EMPACT America, Inc., noted that only three days of food are available in stores and 60 days in warehouses.

               After an initial run on stores for anything one could buy, the effective food supply would be exhausted. What food was left, in warehouses and on the farms, would be left to rot. What wasn’t ruined by a lack of refrigeration would be left to spoil since there would also be a lack of transportation as those delivery vehicles that may still work would simply run out of gas (which is pumped by electricity).

Even purchasing food would assume stores would find some way to operate without electricity.

After an initial binge to eat the thawing food, people will start to get hungry.
              The inability to sanitize and distribute water would quickly threaten public health. Any fire started either by negligence or malicious intent would rage unchecked since there would be no firefighting equipment that would run for very long.  This type of scenario is not fanciful, it is fact. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina offered this scenario in microcosm. According to the National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster suffered by the United States, as well as one of the five deadliest.

Ermarth is quick to point out that an EMP would not throw America back to the 17th century; it would throw the nation back to the Stone Age. There would be a 21st century population living in a primitive environment without Stone Age skills.  In the 19th century, 75 percent of the nation’s population farmed. They were one generation removed from being pioneers. Now the nation is fed by only 2 percent of population. Most of the 98 percent do not have the survival skills to live past a few months.  Survivalists would last for a while, but then would have to contend with people streaming out of cities looking for food.



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537690/201006171858/For-Gulf-Biofuels-Are-Worse-Than-Oil-Spill.aspx         Before the first gallon gushed from Deepwater Horizon, there existed an 8,500 square mile "dead zone" below the Mississippi River Delta, roughly the size of Connecticut and Delaware combined.

 Hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, caused by agricultural runoff in the Mississippi River Basin varies from year to year, but it has been on an upward trend as acreage for corn destined to become ethanol increases.

As Steven Hayward reports in the Weekly Standard, a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that "nitrogen leaching from fertilized cornfields in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River system is a primary cause of the bottom-water hypoxia that develops on the continental shelf of the northern Gulf of Mexico each summer."

Ethanol from corn sounds like an energy panacea, but the devil is in the details. It takes 4,000 gallons of fresh water per acre per day to replace evaporation in a cornfield. Each acre requires about 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous. That produces a lot of runoff. The NAS study concludes that current ethanol production goals will increase dissolved inorganic nitrogen flowing into the Gulf by as much as 34%.

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently stated in a report: "When acidification, fertilizer use, biodiversity loss and toxicity of agricultural pesticides are taken into account, the overall impact of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel."

Vast swaths of rain forest in places like Malaysia and Indonesia have been cleared to provide farmland not to feed the hungry but to fuel our cars. The Nature Conservancy's Joseph Fargione estimates rain forest clear-cutting for biofuels releases 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than it offsets by replacing petroleum or coal.

As Indur M. Goklany of the Cato Institute reports, agricultural expansion leads to higher releases of carbon from biomass and soil above and below ground. Fertilizers that increase yields also increase nitrogen discharge into waters and emissions of nitrous oxide — a greenhouse gas that heats the atmosphere 300 times more effectively than carbon dioxide.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/506832/200909221837/The-End-Is-Near-and151-Not.aspx                 Perry cites data indicating that global temperature fluctuations correspond to a statistically significant degree with the length of the sunspot cycle and variations in solar activity. 1816, the "year without a summer," was during an 1800 to 1830 grand minimum when Europe became significantly cooler.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/480787/200906261911/Carbongate.aspx                 "A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West," the report says, "suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their report suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth's global temperatures."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/517128/201001051906/The-CO2-Lie.aspx                               Cyclical ocean currents, solar cycles, even cosmic rays have been documented as affecting earth's atmosphere and weather.  As Weather Channel founder and eminent meteorologist John Coleman notes, "The sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost 10 straight years.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/516286/200912241817/Five-Decades-Of-Cooling-Ahead.aspx                          From 1850 to 1950, Lu notes, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the Industrial Revolution; the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius.  "Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."  According to research conducted by Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University, the oceans and global temperatures are closely related and have a natural cycle of warming and cooling that affects the planet.  The most important ocean cycle is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). Professor Easterbrook notes that in the 1980s and 1990s it was in a warming cycle, as was the earth. The global cooling from 1940 to 1975, which had some warning of an ice age, coincided with a Pacific cooling cycle.  "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of three decades of global cooling," said Easterbrook.  Such solar and ocean cycles explain why the Earth can cool and polar ice thicken even as carbon dioxide levels continue to increase.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/530765/201004191858/Ash-Backward.aspx                           the evidence suggests volcanoes cause global cooling and Arctic ice to melt.  The stunning eruption of a volcano under Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull glacier has disrupted air traffic over the continent of Europe as vast plumes of steam and ash were spewed into the atmosphere. Once again, we witness the power of nature over man even as man blames himself for nature's acts. Nature's influence over climate is massive and predates and dwarfs man's relatively puny influence. From ocean currents to solar cycles, the earth's temperature is influenced by natural and cyclical phenomena over which man has no control.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/532029/201004301842/Louisiana-Spill-Big-Oils-Chernobyl-.aspx                     No one pays much attention to the aquatic "dead zones" that have appeared off our shores at the mouths of our rivers due to agricultural runoff created by mandates for corn-based ethanol. Ethanol is green energy, good energy — never mind that such biofuels drive up food prices, increase hunger around the world and damage the environment in their own way.

The damaged rig in the Gulf, one of 3,000 offshore oil and gas platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico that survived Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without major damage, is said to be leaking 210,000 gallons of oil per day. This is serious — but rare.

The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2003 that more than 60% — roughly 47 million gallons — of crude released in North American waters each year comes from natural seepage from the sea floor. Only 1% comes from offshore oil and gas development.  In fact, offshore drilling can reduce this natural seepage by extracting crude and relieving geological pressure from below.

Meanwhile, other forms of energy get an environmental pass.

Ethanol takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Each acre of corn needed to make the ethanol requires 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous.

Increased acreage to produce ethanol means increased agricultural runoff, which is creating aquatic dead zones in our rivers, bays and coastal areas.

Wind and solar power face hurdles aside from the obscene amount of land required. Wind turbines can dry out nearby productive agricultural areas and have been referred to as "Cuisinarts of the air" for the hazard they pose to birds and endangered species.

Plans for solar arrays throughout the Southwest require huge amounts of water in a water-starved region. Solar panels accumulate dust, dirt and sand and have to be continually cleaned with water. Not much thought has been given to finding enough water to wash down potentially thousands of square miles of solar panels.

The irony is that the nonfatal accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the 1986 Soviet disaster at Chernobyl conspired to deprive the U.S. of a nonpolluting form of power generation — nuclear power.

ase hunger around the world and damage the environment in their own way.

  We recall the unguarded admission of climate alarmist Steven Schneider of Stanford, printed in Discover in 1989: "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."  The warm-mongers at CRU and NASA may be neither. Let's open their books to find how well they may have been cooked.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/530423/201004151854/Climate-Gate-Gets-A-Whitewash.aspx                         The probe was conducted by Lord Oxburgh, an academic who was briefly chairman of Shell. He is now, according to the Financial Post, chair of Falck Renewables, a firm that has wind farms across Europe, and chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, "a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $1 trillion industry by 2050."

Imagine that. A man with a financial interest in companies that would benefit from efforts to arrest man-made global warming is asked to look into the possible scientific malpractice of researchers whose conclusions are favorable to his business concerns.  Oxburgh is a man of clear bias who should have never been allowed to be near the probe.

New Scientist reporter Susan Clark was writing about the effects of the sun on climate.  New research from Britain's University of Reading "finds that low solar activity promotes the formation of giant kinks in the jet stream," she writes. "These kinks can block warm westerly winds from reaching Europe, while allowing in winds from Arctic Siberia.  "When this happens in winter, northern Europe freezes, even though other, comparable regions of the globe may be experiencing unusually mild conditions."

The study was initiated "because these past two relatively cold British winters coincided with a lapse in the sun's activity more profound than anything seen for a century."  In other words, something other than man's carbon dioxide emissions might be impacting the climate.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/516041/200912221838/Get-The-Frackin-Gas.aspx                               Because of these new technologies, it is estimated that the U.S. sits on 83% more recoverable natural gas than was thought in 1990.

The Barnett Shale rock formations of Texas and Louisiana, the Bakken Shale formation in Montana and North Dakota, and the Marcellus Shale formation running through New York and Pennsylvania and other states may hold as much as 2,000 trillion cubic feet of this clean-burning, domestically produced fuel.  We are the Saudi Arabia of shale.  At current use, we have an estimated 90-year supply, if we are allowed to get at it.

Pro Publica was started by billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler, who, along with billionaire George Soros, funded the left-wing Center for American Progress, run by John Podesta and touted as the Obama administration's "idea factory."

Soros owns a major stake in a company called InterOil, a company that has discovered a large natural gas field in Papua, New Guinea, with which American shale resources would compete.  Soros would rather have us import his liquefied natural gas than develop our own. His allies in the media, the environmental movement and the Democratic caucus are all too eager to exploit public fears to do it.

"This 60-year-old technique has been responsible for 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas," according to Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. "In hydraulic fracturing's 60-year history, there has not been a single documented case of contamination."


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/515264/200912141855/Palin-Vs-Gore-Oceans-Apart.aspx Despite pictures of floating polar bears taken in summer, data reported by the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center show global sea-ice levels the same as they were in 1979, when satellite observations began.  polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels; only two have for local reasons modestly declined.


http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2009/12/10/we_dont_need_evidence/page/full/    Reliable satellite temperature measurements span most of the planet. However, they only cover the last 30 years – and for the past 15 years show stable and then declining temperatures, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. So climate crisis scientists have focused their “research” on ground temperatures.

However, nearly half of the world’s remaining ground-based gauges are in the United States, and cover just 1.8% of the Earth’s surface. Moreover, as meteorologist Anthony Watts has demonstrated, most of those gauges are close to air conditioning exhausts, tarmac, blacktop and other heat sources. So they read high, corrupting climate records, models and analyses.

Most of Siberia’s stations were shut down years ago, leaving that vast frigid region devoid of reliable data and further tilting average global temperatures upward. Britain’s combined marine and land-based temperatures were “value-added” (aggregated, averaged and manipulated) by its East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) – which then tossed or lost all the original raw data, so no one could check its methodologies, honesty or accuracy. (Try that tactic with your friendly IRS.)

The incomplete, averaged and manipulated ground temperature data were then fed into computer models that reflect our still limited understanding of climate causes and dynamics; assume CO2 is the primary driver in climate change; and poorly analyze the vast, complex, chaotic planetary climate system. The models have never been able to forecast climate accurately, even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100. They can’t reproduce prior years’ climates. They failed to predict the stable and declining temperatures of the past 15 years.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/514684/200912082008/Untrustworthy-Data.aspx There is, as well, a cherry-picking problem. The record-keeping period the U.N. is using is 159 years. But a look at temperatures over the last 10,000 years as determined by ice cores, not weather stations, shows that the planet has gone through much warmer eras than it is now experiencing.

Also inconvenient to the U.N.'s report is the scandal at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, one of three climate data analysis centers. E-mails between researchers recently made public reveal: a pattern of manipulation of the data; an effort to crush scientists who dissented from the "consensus" that man is warming the planet; and the possible defrauding of the taxpayers who have funded their research.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/505573/200909081852/Sun-Caused-Warming.aspx                             The Aug. 28 issue of the journal Science details how the scientific team led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), using a century's worth of data and three powerful computer models, figured out just how small changes in solar activity can trigger great changes in earth's climate.

The study found that chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures during solar maximums act in a way that amplifies the sun's influence. The slight increase in solar energy in the peak production of sunspots is absorbed by stratospheric ozone, warming the air in the tropics where sunlight is most intense.  The additional energy also helps produce more ozone that absorbs even more solar energy. The increased sunlight causes a slight warming of ocean surface waters across the subtropical Pacific.

This stratospheric energy absorption and sea surface warming can intensify winds and rainfall, and ultimately influence global weather in ways that amplify the sun's influence.

"The sun, the stratosphere and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence such events as winter rainfall in North America," says study author Gerald Meehl. "Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades."

The world has significantly cooled in the last decade, a period that corresponds to a decline and virtual halt in sunspot activity. Solar activity is in a valley right now, the deepest of the past century. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that in 2008 and 2009 the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind and low solar radiance.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, has said that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long-, medium- and even short-time scales."  Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion. "The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were less than one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

Current solar inactivity is similar to what scientists call the Maunder Minimum, a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 that spawned what is known as the Little Ice Age. At Christmas, Londoners could ice skate on the frozen Thames and New Yorkers could walk over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/564744/201103021834/Bush-Links-To-Oil-Rise-Ran-15-To-1-Vs-Obama.aspxhttp://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/564758/201103021902/Energy-Enemies.aspx http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531731   $10 Trillion climate fraud




                  John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hourlong television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen at 
www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html .  The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and certified consulting meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000.

By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their loss made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case.

Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Then there's the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multitrillion-dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming.

It's deeper than just money. Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They've taught children about melting glaciers.

                        Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli thinks so, and has been diligently trying to obtain from U.Va. documents and e-mails related to Mann's work there. Mann reportedly received around $500,000 from taxpayer-funded grants from the university for research there from 1999 to 2005. Mann was at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal when e-mails were unearthed from Britain's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. In one e-mail sent to Mann and others by CRU director Philip Jones, Jones speaks of the "trick" of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:  "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." It was that attempt to "hide the decline" through the manipulation of data that brought down the global warming house of cards.

Mann was the architect behind the famous "hockey stick" graph that was produced in 1999 but which really should be called the "hokey stick." Developed by Mann using manipulated tree-ring data, it supposedly proved that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century.

Mann et al. had to make the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.

The graph relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Here, too, the results were carefully selected. Just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU's Yamal data set were used. A larger data set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages. They were not included.

They claim they are defending academic freedom, but they are trying to hide what many consider academic fraud, work that found its way into the reports of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It led to Kyoto and Copenhagen, and formed the basis for the EPA's endangerment finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that needs to be regulated.

After Mann left U.Va., he went to Penn State, which the Obama administration awarded with $541,184 in economic stimulus funds to save, according to recovery.gov, 1.62 jobs so that Professor Mann could continue his tree-ring circus fraudulently advancing the myth of man-made global warming that through equally bogus remedies like cap-and-trade and EPA regulations would bring the U.S. economy to its knees.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/515789/200912181953/To-Denmark-From-Russia-With-Lies.aspx                  The latest Climate-gate shoe to drop is the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) accusation that the Hadley Center of Britain's Meteorological Office deliberately relied on a carefully selected 25% of Russia's weather stations that fit its theory of global warming.  By ignoring those that don't, the Russians say, the CRU overestimated warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius.

Here too data were carefully selected. Those from just 12 trees from 252 cores in the Yamal data set were used. A larger set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages. They weren't used.  The hockey-stick graph was produced in 1999 by Mann using these manipulated tree ring data. The graph supposedly proved air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Mann et al. had to make the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.

McIntyre, who with fellow Canadian researcher Ross McKitrick exposed the hockey-stick fraud, says the evidence from only one Siberian tree, known as YAD061, seemed to show a hockey-stick pattern.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/511204/200911031837/Gores-Profits-Of-Doom.aspx                           In a New York Times puff piece the same day Gore's book was released, "Gore's Dual Role: Advocate And Investor," it's described just how profitable saving the earth can be. In November 2007, Gore joined the investment firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The following May the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

The group then announced an additional $700 million to be invested the next three years in green-tech startup firms. But there will be no return on these investments if the green technology business, uh, cools down. The hype and interest must be maintained. Climate change skeptics must be denounced as "deniers."  Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million.

A mere nine years later, estimates put his net worth at about $100 million. Gore's spokeswoman wouldn't give a current figure for his net worth, but, according to the Times, "the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Equity Group," a Palo Alto, Calif., firm that directs clients to conservation investments, namely environmentally correct products.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/476666/200905121900/Penny-Wise-And-Megawatt-Foolish.aspx                     Used nuclear fuel retains upwards of 90% of its original energy. Since beginning operations, France's La Hague facility has safely reprocessed more than 23,000 tons of used fuel — enough to power France for 14 years.

Author William Tucker notes that the French, who get some 80% of their electricity from nuclear power, even import bomb-grade uranium from old Soviet nuclear weapons. They mix it with tailings from uranium mines and export the material to the United States. Tucker reports that one of every 10 light bulbs in America is now being lit by a reprocessed former Soviet weapon.

We wonder why environmentalists are not up in arms over the decision to derail storage of spent nuclear fuel at a single isolated and geological stable site, well-protected from accidents and terrorists, rather than the current system to store it at sites around the country near major cities and population centers.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/510115/200910231844/Carbon-Pawprints.aspx                    Anthony Watts reports on his Web site WattsUpWithThat on a study by Victoria University (New Zealand) professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialize in sustainable living.  They advise in the study, published in New Scientist and in their new book, "Time To Eat The Dog" (we are not making this up), that because of the impact of pets on the earth

they've calculated the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them. They advise having pets like rabbits or chickens. Maybe we could start a Cash for Cluckers program.

"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said.  They calculate that a Toyota Land Cruiser has half the environmental impact of a medium-size dog. Cats have an eco-footprint slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf.




 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/478446/200906021824/Apocalypse-Sun-.aspx                       First noticed in the 1800s, solar activity runs in roughly 11-year cycles. Some are as short as nine years or as long as 14. The valleys are usually brief, a couple of years, but sometimes, for reasons not fully understood, they stretch out for decades."The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we're predicting for 2013."  That 1859 event electrified transmission cables, started fires in telegraph offices and produced Northern Lights bright enough to read a newspaper by. A recent report by by the National Academy of Sciences found that if such a storm occurred today, it could cause up to $2 trillion in damages to society's high-tech infrastructure.  The National Research Council has estimated that such a storm would play havoc with our power grid, resulting in "large-scale blackouts affecting more than 130 million people (in the U.S.) and (exposing) more than 350 major transformers to the risk of permanent damage."NASA says this solar cycle will peak in 2013. The Mayan calendar identifies Dec. 12, 2012, as the end of the world as we know it. Seems to us we might better spend our money protecting our power grid and high-tech infrastructure against such a possibility rather than worrying about the emission standards for our cars. 





http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/            While nearly all current nuclear reactors run on uranium, the radioactive element thorium is recognized as a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel. Thorium is particularly well-suited for use in molten-salt reactors, or MSRs. Nuclear reactions take place inside a fluid core rather than solid fuel rods, and there’s no risk of meltdown.  In addition to their safety, MSRs can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste. Their byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. They can also operate as breeders, producing more fuel than they consume.



The federally-owned Tennessee Valley Authority said it plans to finish building the Bellafonte 1 nuclear reactor it started in the 1970s. Directors of the TVA voted unanimously in favor of doing so, citing advanced new safety measures as the reason. This comes after they completed Browns Ferry Unit 1 in 2007 and while they're working on completing Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 2. Both of those plants had been stalled since the 70s as well.

            The utility, which already operates six nukes, says that cutting its pollution is a top priority and the most effective way to do so is by building clean base-load nuclear generators. Again, the safety of advanced new reactors and fuels was cited as the main reason. A single pellet of this fuel the size of my pinkie can generate as much heat as a ton of high-quality coal — with zero emissions. Early tests show it could help prevent any type of meltdown from ever happening again. The technology is completely controlled by a 20-cent company. But with GE, Hitachi, and Toshiba already signed-on to help develop and spread the fuel's use across the globe, it won't stay that way for long. Every expert I've talked to says this is the next big thing for energy.     (  IAALF is the ticker for IBC Advanced Alloys, don’t bet the ranch or more than you can afford to lose!)



http://www.dancewithshadows.com/auto/mercedes-benz-bionic-car-gallery.asp    the 103 kW/140-hp diesel engine and innovative SCR technology (Selective Catalytic Reduction) greatly contribute to fuel economy and a further reduction in exhaust emissions. In the EU driving cycle the concept car has a fuel consumption of 4.3 litres per 100 kilometres - 20 less than a comparable series-production car. In accordance with the US measuring method (FTP 75) the range is around 70 miles per US gallon (combined), which is about 30 percent more than for a standard-production car. At a constant speed of 90 km/h the direct-injection diesel unit consumes only 2.8 litres per  100 kilometres- corresponding to a range of 84 miles per gallon in the US test cycle.


http://www.suite101.com/content/hydrogen-fuel-for-cars-a28796  Will Cars of the Future Run on Aluminum, Water and Gallium?  While it has long been known that aluminum and oxygen produce a powerful reaction when combined – which is why aluminum is often used as an accelerant in rocket fuel - typically, that reaction is mitigated in "real life" by the fact that when the oxygen is released in the reaction, the oxidation results in the formation of a patina or "skin" on the surface of the metal – which dramatically slows down the continued reaction. But adding gallium to the mix, Woodall found, prevents that from happening. The mixture of aluminum alloy, water and gallium causes a reaction that spontaneously produces hydrogen by splitting the water molecules into its component parts: hydrogen and oxygen. The actual process, says Woodall, is as simple as the oxidation that allows iron to rust, copper to turn green or other metals (like aluminum) to form a "skin" or patina when exposed to oxygen for long periods of time. Gallium, it seems, prevents the aluminum alloy from forming that skin or patina when exposed to oxygen – and it’s the skin that forms that keeps the oxidation from fully reacting with the alloy and completing the process efficiently. According to Woodall, when the aluminum alloy pellets come in contact with water, a reaction begins which splits the water molecules (H20) into two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. But the very act of splitting off the oxygen actually acts as a barrier to the full reaction – creating the skin. Gallium, by prohibiting formation of this skin, allows the reaction to continue until all of the aluminum is spent. After the reaction, the gallium remains unchanged and unspent. Even batter, gallium remains unchanged after the reaction, allowing it to react with the aluminum and water indefinitely.Woodall discovered that hydrogen could be produced out of water, aluminum alloy, and gallium while working in the semiconductor industry in 1967. Read more at Suite101: Hydrogen Fuel for Cars: Will Cars of the Future Run on Aluminum, Water and Gallium? | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/hydrogen-fuel-for-cars-a28796#ixzz1Y36sJ5NZ







The Enertia design also uses a lot of wood, which Sykes says is certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. According to Sykes, the use of wood, along with the need for two windows where most homes would have one, drives up the cost of materials for the home so that the overall cost is 10%–20% greater than that of a home with a conventional stick frame.

For that cost premium and higher resource use, one would hope for a significant return in terms of reduced energy costs. Enertia’s “no fuel, no power” marketing has led to accounts that Enertia requires no heating or cooling equipment. However, of the three Enertia homeowners EBN spoke with for this article, in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Vermont, all had radiant-floor heating systems, which are needed particularly when cold, cloudy winter conditions prevail for more than a day or two and the circulation of stored solar heat comes to a standstill. Sykes also said that it was standard, especially in southern climates, for Enertia homeowners to install a small air-conditioning system.

Similar to the way in which Enertia’s design leads to reduced comfort, improving its performance, it also appears to sacrifice indoor air quality for energy performance. Those who remember the 1970s houses with two parallel exterior walls and an airspace between them circulating solar heat around the house may be doing double-takes in response to the Enertia house. A double-envelope house design by Enertia Building Systems has been buoyed by the 2007 Modern Marvel of the Year award from the History Channel (cosponsored by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) and attention from green lifestyle websites. The Enertia design’s use of solar orientation, natural ventilation, and thermal mass are timeless and unimpeachable, and with proper implementation should reduce heating and cooling costs in any house. http://blog.greenhomebuilding.com/2007/05/enertia-house.htm          







Earlier this year Iranian officials announced that Iran's cyber war campaign would be activated under the Passive Defense Organization of Iran, which openly recruited hackers who would support the goals and ideals of the radicals ruling Iran. Also as reported earlier, in a recent meeting among Iran's Revolutionary Guard commanders and Iranian scientists, America's vulnerabilities for a cyber attack were discussed. They concluded that the U.S. power grids represent the best opportunity for such attacks, as more U.S. utilities are moving their control systems to the Internet and using smart-grid technology.

According to reports from the U.S. Department of Energy, America's power grid remains vulnerable to cyber attack, a result of slow implementation of computer security standards. A successful cyber attack on the North American power grid systems could disrupt the economy and possibly create a national trauma.  Read more: Iran says U.S. 'will be taught the mother of all lessons' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=329977#ixzz1ZMUHAIIP




http://www.rexresearch.com/johnson/1johnson.htm         "You come along with a magnet and pick up a piece of iron, then some physicist says you didn't do any work because you used that magnet. But you moved a mass through a distance. Right? That's work that requires energy. Or you can hold one magnet in the air indefinitely by positioning it over another magnet with like poles facing. The physicist will argue that because it involves magnetic repulsion, no work is done. Yet if you support the same object with air, they will agree in a minute that work is done!"

U.S. Patent No. 4,151,431 which describes how it is possible to generate motive power, as in a motor, using only the energy contained in the atoms of permanent magnets. That's right. Johnson has discovered how to build motors that run without an input of electricity or any other kind of external energy!  United States Patent  4,877,983 and US Patent # 5,402,021

In 1942 using the Bohr model of the atom, and knowing that unpaired electron spins created a permanent magnet dipole, I kept wondering why we couldn't use these fields to drive something. I was sure that the magnetic effect of the spins was similar enough to the field of a current in a wire to do the same thing. I had no knowledge of electron spins stopping and knew no method that I could exert to stop them, so I decided to try to work out a method to use them.

It was about this time that I mentioned the fact that just as I believed electron spins made permanent magnets, I also believed that they were responsible for the 60° angles in the structure of snowflakes giving the six-spoked wheel, the six-sided spokes, etc. The dean of the school where I was teaching said, "Maybe so" and ask me if I knew that snowflakes were mentioned in the Bible as being important. I told him, "No, I didn't know that," but I looked it up. It said: "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? Or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail? Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war." Also a wonderful book by Dr. Bentley of New Hampshire. He had found that snowflakes have gas pockets oriented on 60° angles and that the gas has a higher percentage of oxygen than air. That's one reason why snow water rusts so well. This higher concentration of oxygen also interested me because oxygen is more attracted to a magnetic field than other gases.

Coulomb's Law, embodying the inverse square relationship as it does, may yet prove suspect, it nevertheless provides an exceedingly simple yet viable form upon which to base an elementary model of the linear version of the permanent magnet motor. Describing the interaction between two magnetic monopoles

Website Builder