Global Warming ? Real or BoogeyMan ?

Global Rotation Change (GRC)

Yes, GRC is a really, Really, Big Deal (BFD). Read more about it here.

FACTS:

Our Global Rotation is slowing down.*

Days are getting longer.

Means More Work and Forced early bedtimes to counteract planet-busting leisure activities all of which have - scientists all agree - a higher carbon footprint than worktime.

Be among The First in Your Neighborhood to Suffer From (and be diagnosed with) Post Traumatic Rotation Anxiety Disorder (PTRAD). Does YOUR health policy have PTRAD benefits? Of course not. BoramaCare will be the first to dispense payments for PTRAD disability. Cancel your private health care NOW and be ready to let Borama pay you for being sick in every way you can (some exceptions apply and your results may vary).

There can be no doubt that Global Rotation Change is MAN MADE - scientists all agree - and is the proven result of runaway:

Global Warming, AND/OR

Global Cooling, AND/OR

Global Everything-Just-Staying-The-Same, AND/OR

El Nino, AND/OR

all this too, AND/OR

all this, three.

Global Rotation Change is such an Awesome Crisis that it will usher in Global Governance much faster than old-fashioned Climate Change. Get on the bandwagon NOW for Global Rotation Change. You, too, can Save the Planet and salute the UN flag.

Another Contributing Cause of GRC - scientists all agree - is The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy which has secretly designed all American toilets to swirl in the same direction. Scientists all agree that this is counteracting the natural gyroscopic forces of the planet, causing its spin to slow down. Societies in which toilets are seldom used at all (such as in Iran) are therefore much more "green" and are to be envied and emulated.

Solution: Once-a-week flushes scheduled and controlled by Swirl-Reverser Paddle Engines (wind powered and further augumented by natural methane emissions), to be mounted on all American toilets. These SRPEs will whip the toilet bowl contents around in the opposite direction to reduce planet-slowing. CAUTION: Be careful that you are not still seated when the Swirl-Reversing Paddles engage. Also, always keep the lid down for when the s--t hits the paddles.

More progressive thinkers prefer Borama's Plan to replace all old toilets with new ones that look and sound like shop vacs (they do not swirl at all). The Cost is Free because the Federal Government will barter with China for them (Secretary Clinton will at last be useful) with lots of pure - but useless (scientists all agree) - gold from Fort Knox. It's an even trade - scientists all agree - a 50 pound Chinese toilet for 50 pounds of USA gold. What could be fairer that that? Gold for crappers... Shrewd, even for Borama.

Another alternative is for Borama to pass a Crap and Tax Bill (on top of the Carbon Tax Bill) for, say, another nine trillion dollars (what a bargain). In this plan, rich politician-owned energy and financial companies would Own all Excrement Rights and then could Sell them to those who needed to excrete. This would tend keep excretions down which in turn would supress the number of flushes and thus the number of anti-gyro swirls. This bold stroke might even save us from the feared Chandler Wobble that now menaces our beloved Gaia Earth. The Planet is Saved Again by Borama and his istas! Become one now! Here's how:

What Can I Do to Help Stop Global Rotation Change ?

There are easy things everyone can do (start today):

Agitate for additional taxes on right-handed people.

Only buy light bulbs that swirl to the left.

Immediately replace all bulbs that swirl to the right.

Agitate for more local, state, and Federal laws to ban right-swirling bulbs.

Make three left turns instead of one right turn.

Always run to the West but only walk when going East.

Always exhale facing West, but face East (towards mecca) before releasing other windy emanations.

Together - scientists all agree - we can Stop Global Rotation Change

BACK TO TOP   STOP THE MADNESS

*except when it is speeding up.

Global Warming ? Real or BoogeyMan ?

From Al Gore, to CNN, and to the Discovery and Weather Channels (and all media in between), the American public is being immersed in a 24/7 propaganda campaign of intimidating proportion.  The catch phrase has been Global Warming, but by 2009 there had been so much disagreement, and dis-proof, of the basis of the Global Warming "arguments" that new catch-phrases had to be coined by its political shills, such as 'Climate-Change'.  This and other new terms (e.g., 'our deteriorating atmosphere', 'cap and cash back', and 'saving money for a more prosperous future') are meant to find new ways to frame environmental issues for the purpose of building public support for more "green" legislation and other initiatives. This still allows the UN and other anti-American groups to blame Americans whichever way the Earth goes - Ice Age or steambath.  Beginning now, be prepared to see and hear this new way of promoting the same, flawed "science" of the Global Warming crowd.  In the text below, the term Global Warming is used exclusively, but also stands for its latter-day synonym, Climate Change.

---

The Man-Made Global Warming alarmists want you to swallow their carefully contrived assertion that "scientists all agree" that MMGW is an indisputable, inescapable fact.  However, the truth remains that many honest scientists continue to prove otherwise.  Here are a few examples: Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, according to respected climate researchers, who say that "climate change is normal."  Still other scientists are saying that Global Cooling is about to deal us a planetary smackdown of chilling proportion.      The Go-Green (as in greenbacks) advocates, led by the United Nations, are eagerly lapping up the cash that MMGW is scaring out of consumer and corporate pocket books.

---

I believe the basic premise on which the the-sky-is-falling squad and the we're-running-out-of-oil club all hang their pro-nuclear arguments is nothing more than unproven speculation - albeit oh so "scientific."  Their line goes something like this:

Basically, the main drawback of fossil fuels is pollution.  Burning any fossil fuel produces carbon dioxide, which accelerates the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect", thereby warming the Earth.

I define 'fact' as something obvious, indisputable, and subject to little if any interpretation: 1 + 1 = 2 ...that sort of thing.

I certainly do not dispute the actual facts, the most sobering of which is: the greatest output of "pollutant" released from the burning of any fossil fuel (or even hydrogen, for that matter) is common water vapor (36-70%).  The second greatest gas released (9-26%) is CO2 - ordinary carbon dioxide  - which is completely non-poisonous as I am sure you already know.  After all, where would Budweiser, Coors, Coke, Pepsi, 7-Up, etc etc be without good old CO2 to make them fizz?  The act of drinking a single Coke probably releases about a gallon of CO2, a so-called "Greenhouse Gas", into the atmosphere - yet we hear no shrill demands that the young folks who (in 1971) sang "I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke" must be held [at least partly] responsible for Hurricane Katrina.

---

The Keeling Curve

The Keeling Curve is the Holy Grail of The Sky Is Falling mob.  When presented with actual observations that conflict with their worldview, say, those that prove Global Warming is a scam and a sham for example, they will almost certainly cite the Keeling Curve as an irrefutable trump card.  Let's examine it in more detail: When Keeling started his measurements in 1958, CO2 levels were around 315 ppmv (parts per million by volume - that is 315 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air); by the year 2006 they had risen to about 385 ppmv, an absolute increase of 70 ppmv.  Most will quickly calculate this to be a whopping increase of 22.2 % in units of ppmv - more than enough to alarm the likes of Al Gore and his greenie hoard.  But wait, let's look at this from the perspective of reality: the absolute magnitude of the measured increase (assuming it is accurate) is from 315 molecules of CO2 to 385 - an increase of 70 parts of CO2 to 1,000,000 parts of other gasses - an actual increase of only 0.007% (seven one-thousandths of one percent) over 50 years.

Let's put the Keeling Curve into a realistic perspective: Imagine a mountain exactly 1,000,000 inches tall.  That would put its summit at 83,333 feet, nearly 3 times as high as Mt Everest.  Now, lets add 70 inches to the top of our imaginary mountain, making it grow to 83339 feet, an under-whelming surge of about 5 feet 8 inches - the height of one average person - in 50 years.

Such is the real-world increase in atmospheric CO2 levels said to be found by the "Keeling Curve" over the last 50 years.  Such numbers are, in my opinion, a statistically insignificant amount of proof of Global Warming and well within the fog of obscuring "noise" induced by Keeling's sampling error(s).  The shrill keening of greenie doomsayers brandishing this kind of "evidence" is a real yawn in my book!  No reasonable (i.e., non-agenda-driven) person could possibly conclude that the Keeling Curve is proof that human activity is solely responsible for any increase in planetary temperature, however tiny.

BACK TO TOP   STOP THE MADNESS

---

In April 2007 the US Supreme Court, in a moronic display of Black Robe Meddling, decreed that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions from cars.  Just what America needs, more mindless rulings from a government bureaucracy, similar to OSHA who ruled that construction vehicles had to have loud backhorns and then ruled all nearby workers must wear earplugs to protect them from hearing damage.  Even more troubling is the fact that once EPA is in control, radical greenies can do an end run on Congress and demand that EPA adopt the entire air-standards of the Kyoto Protocol.

In October 2007 the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (a political-puppet of Democrat Governor Sebelius) became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a coal-fired generating plant in Holcomb, KS, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment.  Bob Eye, a former Kansas state legislator (i.e., bought lackey), said of the decision: "...CO2 ... is a pollutant, not just because the Sierra Club says it, but because the Supreme Court said it." Now them is some cold, hard scientific facts you spout, Bobbie.  Too bad neither of your references is anything but a political watercarrier just like you, KDHE Secretary Roderick L. Bremby, and Kansas Governor Katherine Sebelius.

Bremby's Bio (26K .pdf) shows that his scientific credentials are non-existent, and that his previous experience consists of an under-whelming "...10 years as the assistant city manager in Lawrence, KS, where he was responsible for overseeing the budgeting process, police, fire and medical, public works, water, sewer, finance, information systems, and parks and recreation departments."  In this obviously staged propaganda video (26Mb .wmv), Bremby mechanically recites the full Global Warming party line while offering no valid reasons for denying the Holcomb air permit.  In January 2008 the left-leaning Kansas City Star reported on a survey that supposedly showed that "a majority" of Kansans supported the rejection of the air permit.  If you examine the survey question itself (on page two of the report), you will see how biased the survey is.

The real story here is that environmentalists are covertly trying to get more expensive alternative energy sources approved.  But the real danger is that nuclear power is also being heavily promoted because of it's "lower carbon footprint" - but we are never told of the dangers of radioactive-carbon (and other environmentally toxic radio isotopes) produced by the nukes (not to mention the 10,000-year inconvenience of storing spent nuclear fuel).

The existence of an accelerated Greenhouse Effect - aka "Global Warming" - caused from humans burning fossil fuels (and rain forests) is no more a "fact" than is, say, evolution. Those who posit otherwise - usually citing the "proof" that science says so - are mostly engaging in circular logic.  Many scientists candidly agree that they are not entirely sure if permanent, irreversable Global Warming is happening at all, or - if it is - that very likely the process is: (A) part of Earth's natural multi-thousand-year temperature cycle, and/or (B) due (at least in part) to cyclical variation in the heat output of our own sun.

This latter possibility seems to gain credence in this March 2007 article in National Geographic in which Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, is reported as publishing findings that show Mars has "Global Warming", too.  Looks like those pesky Martians are driving too many SUVs, just like us.  Actually, Abdussamatov said "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars."

In reading the National Geographic article, one quickly notes that, early-on, the NG reporter gives all non-Global-Warming evidence a negative spin, referring to Abdussamatov's findings as "... one scientist's controversial theory."  It appears their definition of controversy has been twisted to imply disagreement by anyone who does not subscribe to the Global Warming mantras.

The bulk of the NG article then lards (and lauds) itself with endless citations and quotes from other scientists (more circular logic and mutual tail-sniffing) who promote the creed that mankind is causing Global Warming.  By their measure, the summit of Pikes Peak Colorado will soon be a tropical island.  Without shame the ""Wobbles in the orbit [and axis] of Mars" are cited by said scientists as the reason for the current warming of Mars, while they preemptively dismiss the wobble of Earth's own axis as being merely "responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages [every 20,000 to 100,000 years]."  DUH.  The present so-called "Global Warming" on Earth sounds like we're now in one of the waning periods to me.  I agree with Abdussamatov when he says "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040.  It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

A new study (2006) confirms Europe's climate is warming.  Surprisingly, CO2 is not cited as the the culprit, but rather "...water vapor [which appears to be] accounting for about 70% of the observed temperature rise.  Australian researchers have found (2006) that sea levels have risen by 19.5cm (7.7 inches) between 1870 and 2004.  They went on to predict that sea levels could rise an additional 28 to 34cm (11 to 13 inches) during the remainder of this century.  Admirably, both sets of investigators resisted the temptation to blame these conditions on so-called "Global Warming."   More to the point, in April 2006 an Astralian geologist said straight out that so-called Global Warming "...is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco."  In fact, a February 2007 report by the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University shows that, during the late 20th century, Antarctic temperatures did not rise as had been predicted by many global climate models.

May I remind you that water vapor is the primary exhaust component of burning any fuel, particularly hydrogen, the secretly soiled darling of the anti-SUV lobby.  Note that water vapor (aka 'steam', 'clouds', etc.) is the major "greenhouse gas", 99.999% of which is of natural origin.  Further, all electronic devices that operate on "standby power" (such as TVs, PCs, DVD players, etc) are, indirectly, "huge producers" of the evil gas, CO2.  From this we can conclude: (1) The greenie-despised internal combustion engine is not exclusively to blame for so-called Global Warming, and (2), therefore, continued use of fossil fuels to provide power for both transportation and industry is not necessarily a bad or foolhardy practice.

---

The facts notwithstanding, Militant Global Warmists - lead by prominent Hollywood actor/experts - have provided us this exclusive, undeniable proof that Global Warming has us by the yang and that its progress is, in fact, accelerating.  Meanwhile, Hollywood execs are calling for Subliminal Green Messages in all new films [i.e., propaganda pieces].  To complete their greenie double-speak, certain climatologists are warning that Global Dimming is masking the effects of Global Warming, and that if we ever get control of the former then the latter will fall upon us with such ferocity that all hope is lost.  The MGWs villify anyone (especially real scientists) who dare to disagree with their mantras, accusing them of being on the payrolls of Oil Companies and other Large Corporations [always nameless].  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") is a political bureaucracy designed to further the hysteria and call down warts and boils upon the heads of all who disagree with their dogma/agenda.  A brave group of real scientists have dared to disagree with the IPCC and have actually resigned from that body when they discovered its true color.   With a click you can view their 20-minute streaming video exposing what is really going on at the UN.

BACK TO TOP   STOP THE MADNESS

---

UN WANTS CLIMATE TAX and CLIMATE POLICE

The Globalists want to have a party at your expense, such as when 10,000 of them jetted into the Indonesian resort island of Bali (late 2007) for a Global Warming Conference, - the second within the same month - which is nothing more than another United Nations shell game that contributes to the very problem they decry.  "... huge numbers of people are going, and their emissions are probably going to be greater than a small African country," said Chris Goodall, author of the book 'How to Live a Low-Carbon Life.'  Another excellent write-up gives more details on the environmental impact of the Bali gathering.  Many attendees say they have bought "carbon credits" to offset their presence.  "Carbon credits" are nothing more than another risky scheme to tap the Global Warming Hysteria for fun and profit (their own); yet another lottery to fleece the public.  One of the UN goals of the Bali conference is to raise an additional $10-$40 billion dollars per year by putting a Global UN Tax on the USA and other "rich" coutries.

While attending the Bali conference, anti-American Globalist Al Gore savaged his country for its alleged "obstructing" attitude and urged delegates at the UN conference in Bali to ignore the USA if necessary to pursue the "moral imperative" of a new global regime.  In contrast, Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants: "Climate change is a non-problem.  The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

The truth notwithstanding, a new body of political police (similar to the so-called International Court of Justice) is to become the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.  The first role of this so-called 'UN Climate Court' would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.  In addition, it would prosecute and fine countries or companies that supposedly fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment.  The mandate of these new UN cops would be to enforce some vague "right to a healthy environment".  The UN Climate Change Conference scheduled for late 2008 is set to begin negotiations that will lead to sweeping new regulations in 2009 (The Copenhagen Accord) to replace the mostly-ignored Kyoto Protocol.

 March 2009 - RED ALERT FLASH: The UN Copenhagen Accord is a Global Warming Tax & Spend Plan (you pay, they spend) for you and the whole world.  You can read the UN's casual enumeration of national sacrifices to be made at the UN Alter of Global Warming in this 19-page UN memo.  An easier-to-read document from the London school of Economics and Political Science is written in more straightforward language but still says about the same thing: 'All must be sacrificed at the Global Alter.'  This will all be made much easier by the new UN Global Currency plan (you're gonna love it).  No one at the UN is at all deterred by the simple plan that so-called Global Warming just plain ain't...

BACK TO TOP   STOP THE MADNESS

---

Not only is car exhaust being blamed for Global Warming, but meat-eating humans as well.  Our "wise" politicians, PETA, the UN, and all the sky-is-falling apostles of Global Warming have all bought into a Quixotic attempt to balance our nations energy budget by lengthening the months over which Daylight Savings Time begins (second Sunday in March) and ends (first Sunday in November) in 2007 and beyond.

More and more people are electing to be creamated on death, yet few have considered how much their decision will affect Global Warming.  Emissions from crematories include nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), various heavy metals, and other Persistent Organic Pollutants.  In short, all that carbon is going right back into the air and the eternal carbon cycle rolls on neither perturbed or abated.  How long can it be before the politicians (domestic, international, and/or UN) decree that a person is to be taxed (or buy carbon credits) to offset the environmental impact of their own death?  How much will the enviro-nazis in government drool over the much larger tax if they rule that the estate of the deceased must pay for carbon-offsets to cover an entire carbon-squandering life?

In late September 2006, SENATOR JAMES INHOFE, CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Chairman gave a speech on the Senate floor.   in which he detailed the biased, alarmist, disingenuous, and hysterical spin the mainstream media is giving the so-called Global Warming Crisis.  This speech is a must read.  Be sure to follow all the many internal links for detailed resource information.  On May 15th, 2007, the same US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works published an article stating that "Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics."  Indeed, on that same day the US Senate defeated a proposal (by Democrats) requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the impact of [Taa Daa] climate change in designing water resources projects.  This oh-so-rare tidbit of congressional courage is heartening, but it makes me wonder if something new has been added to their drinking water...

---

Debunking Global Warming Hysteria

So far there have been few attempts to assess the danger(s) of allowing Global Warming Hysteria to go unchecked.  In this late 2007 article, yet another weather professional further debunks GWH.  A good measure of the current level of GWH is the call by singer/science-expert Sheryl Crow to use only one square of toilet paper per sitting in order to save the planet.  So which is really worse - global warming or grossly bad BO ??  Bet you didn't know the WTO "Experts" are calling for the end of flushing toilets to help save the planet.  So if all of us skimp on potty paper, or abandon our toilets altogether, will the presumed tree and water saving offset the global warming caused by Sheryl's vehicular touring entourage consisting of 3 tractor-trailors, 4 busses, and 6 cars?

I live near The Peoples Republic of Boulder, Colorado.  There you will see the planet's highest concentration of prissy wierd-beards driving their spanky little Toyota Priuses.  Their drivers smugly think they are saving the world, but in truth every Prius is an environmental holocaust (more info is here)!  The problem is not with its clever gas/electric power unit but with the manufacture (and disposal) of its eco-busting battery pack.  So as not to pick only on the Prius, the new Honda Insight 1.3 IMA SE Hybrid is equally as harmful - and a poor drive as well.
BACK TO TOP   STOP THE MADNESS

---

The May 24, 2007 Senate Speech raised the warning that all the Chicken Little clucking about so-called Global Warming is going to do great damage to the recreation industry.  Of late, more and more contradictory articles are leaking through the Global Warming dikes.  Eventually the truth will come to light, as in this WND article that references the report partially quoted below:

"A new analysis (late 2007) of peer-reviewed literature reveals that hundreds of scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.  More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.  'This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,' said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery."

"Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate."

You can read the original article from which the above two paragraphs were taken at this link.

By December 2007 more than 400 scientists were dispewting the hysterical Man-Made Global Warming claims, according to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.  Perhaps the most revealing trend is that the list of MMGW skeptics is growing, not shrinking!   By late 2008 their ranks had increased to 650, 12 times that of the 54 original U.N. "scientists" who authored the official IPCC 2007 MMGW report.  Of course the evidence is only anecdotal, but 2007 has seen record low temps worldwide.

An October 2007 article highlights new research by Danish scientists which in part says:

The surface air temperature is a poor guide to sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system...[contrary to the] custom to attribute to greenhouse gases any increase in global temperatures not due to solar changes.  "While that is reasonable," they say, "one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic [human-activity-generated] gases and greenhouse gases.  Increased evaporation, for example, means "infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, whether driven by anthropogenic or solar forcing.  "In any case," they emphasize, "the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero."

You can download their entire report here (350K .pdf).

The term "science" at one time meant the pursuit and recording of knowledge based on experimental results that were repeatable and could be verified by others.  These days science has been co-opted to include any concept or notion that the "scientific community" merely declares to be fact - as if science is now reduced to some sort of popular poll among the academic elite.

Prime examples of "poll-driven science" are [The Theory of] Evolution and Global Warming (aka Climate Change).  Such dogmatic propositions are nothing more than fact-by-accolade, and are not in any way supportable by direct experiment.  Once the [formerly] scientific community has erected such an icon, they idolize and defend it with ferocity usually reserved for battlefields.  Any member who challenges the accepted belief is labeled an heretic and threatened with excommunication.  Consider the unfortunates who dare question the assertions of Darwin.  Read in this article about the fate of a college professor who suggested life on earth was the result of a non-evolutionary (i.e., non-random) process.

BACK TO TOP   STOP THE MADNESS

BrainWashing the Children

As you have already heard, in mid-October 2007 Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, on top of a 2006 Oscar, for An Inconvient Truth.  However, even the shallowest examination will confirm that the Nobel Peace Prize is - at all levels - social/political in nature and in no way confers any scientific endorsement (or aptitude) on the part of its recipients.  Keep in mind that the Nobel Peace Price was also awarded to the likes of global appeaser Jimmy Carter and terrorist Yasser Arafat.  Infamous nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize include Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini.  Note however, since candidates may be submitted by any "qualified person," these unusual nominations do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Nobel Peace Prize committee itself.  Former US vice-president Gore was awarded the prize [more of a popularity poll, I think] jointly by the UN's IPCC) - how convienient !

Most public schools are actively indoctrinating children to have a near religious faith, like these 4th Graders in Maine, that so-called Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is due to human activity.  Naturally, all such activities must therefore be monitored, licensed, taxed, and regulated by government(s) and/or UN bureaucracy (e.g., the IPCC), which is exactly why government(s) and/or UN bureaucracy are so actively pushing the Global Warming political agenda (that's really all it is).  But fortunately some sense of rational thought is beginning to emerge, as exampled by the courts ruling that teachers (?) in the UK must announce a bias warning before showing Al Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvient Truth.   The judge cited nine specific assertions made by the film - all inaccurate and unscientific [and inconvienient no doubt to Mr. Gore] - as reasons for his ruling (click on image at left).  Subsequently, the court added two more serious scientific inaccuracies to the list for a total of eleven.  "We're brainwashing our children," says Dr William Gray, long-time professor and atmospheric reasearcher at Colorado State University.   Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environement and Public Works Committee, delivered a two-hour floor speech (late October, 2007) rebuking fears of man-made global warming that are being implanted by Hollywood into school children.

Governments have often in the past employed the strategy of setting up a faux crisis (sometimes several at once) which only bigger government, higher (and higher) taxes, and ever more freedom-constraining laws and regulations can "solve."   In the following article, historian and patriot Pat Buchanan (the President we might have had) comments on "The Global Warming Hucksters", and the history of how the "...mammoth government we have today is a result of politicians rushing to solve "crises" by creating and empowering new federal agencies."  Read Pat's words, and awaken...

Bottom line: the earth may be (likely is) in a warming cycle (so is our planetary neighbor, Mars), but this is natural and historically expected.  Further, (1) Blaming mankind (US citizens specifically) is mostly politically motivated (and expedient), (2) Knee-jerk reactions (e.g., CFL replacements for incandescent lamps) are likely to cause more harm than they purport to cure, (3) Who says a gradual warming is all that bad, anyway?, (4) Who will ensure that China, India, Africa, and other growing, energy-using societies will comply, and (5) Are you really comfortable with placing America's social and economic future in the grasping hands of UN-dominated third-world countries (or is it the other way 'round)?  Never forget that under their new world order, the United Nations has a plan for America and Americans that you're not going to like.

Compact Florescent Lamps

Beware, as well, of the mindless stupidity which motivates entire governments (Canada, USA, Australia, others) to call for all incandescent lightbulbs to be replaced with compact florescent lamps ("CFLs").   See a YouTube video EPA Requirements for CFL disposal. All are made in China, and all contain harmful mercury. May interfere with your wireless network. Yet US congress has made their 100% use mandatory. No one ever told these greenballs that CFLs are entirely unsuitable for use in refrigerators, ovens, and a myriad of other specialty applications.  In an amusing twist of fate, all sushi-eating greenies who advocate global use of CFLs (and even those who do not) are being poisoned by their own agenda.

The USA Gross National Debt
 FLASH:  DECEMBER 2007: US Congress bans incandescent bulbs by 2012.  What the greenies won't tell you, and the politicians are too dimwitted to realize, is that ALL CFLs ARE MADE IN CHINA and CFLs contain mercury, an extremely dangerous biological and environmental poison. When an incandescent bulb burns out, one just throws it away.  It is environmentally harmless.  Not so CFLs.  At the end of a CFLs life it must - by law - instead undergo extensive, and expensive, HazMat processing as a hazardous material.   Even the EPA says use of CFLs over carpeted areas should be avoided.  OK - I get it - then CFLs should be used only over hard-surfaced floors and counters where they will be sure to break whenever dropped.  For such sage [?] advice we the taxpayers are paying millions?  Some even warn that widespread CFL usage will result in a net increase in CO2 emissions.

Please read this eye-opening report of a mother who accidentally broke a single CFL in her childs bedroom: the HazMat cost of CFL cleanup for the mercury dust, ejected from that single broken CFL, is estimated at $2,000.  Who's saving now?  The pro-CFL lobby tells you that the energy CFLs save offsets the mercury they contain, but before you start replacing your incandescent bulbs you had better look at the complete end-to-end cost of CFLs - to the environment, to the economy, and to your own family. As for me, I am Pro-Choice on CFLs, and you should be, too!

If you break a CFL...

The EPA has published the following CFL clean-up and disposal guidelines:

Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.

Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.

Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).

Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.

Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.

Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.

Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it.

If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or recycling options are available).

Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.

The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

You can download a 60K .pdf file containing more information about CFLs and their disposal.  Here is a downloadable EPA FACT SHEET (17K .pdf) on the Mercury contained in CFLs.   EPA has more to say about safe [???] mercury disposal at their website here.

Recycling CFLs would be nice if you are so inclined.  Trouble is, of the 514 million CFL lamps now sold annually, 70.8% of the mercury-containing lamps used by business and 98% of the mercury-containing lamps used in homes are not being recycled - Source here (174K .pdf).   Multiply 514 million by a factor of 1,000 (at least) if the general world population begins to switch to CFLs (be it voluntarily or otherwise) and you can begin to see the magnitude of the environmental hazard that CFLs actually represent.

Still, if you really believe you can save mankind from Global Warming by using CFLs, then you also need to bookmark this on-line resource for details on recycling your spent mercury-containing CFL (or florescent-tube type) lamps.  Well, good luck in finding a disposal center, because facilities for safe disposal and plans for providing new and upgrading existing recycling centers for the mercury-laden CFLs (seen as the savior of our dying planet) lag far behind the hype.  Finally a trickle of common sense can be seen in the CFL-warnings issued by the Canadian-based Planetary Association for Clean Energy.  Similar CFL Warnings have been posted (early 2008) in the United Kingdom by the UK Environment Agency and the alarming Low-energy (CFL) bulb disposal warning cited in the official BBC news agency.
BACK TO TOP    STOP THE MADNESS

The other day I actually heard an expert (???) on the Discovery Channel say that Global Warming would cause such a dramatic shift in the temperature of the Gulf Stream that arctic conditions would ensue in North America, thereby causing mass starvation.  

No doubt, such a perverse scenario was responsible for the cancellation, in February 2007, of the Energy and Air Quality subcommittee hearing (Subject: Warming of the Planet) in Washington DC.  And so here is how some scientists explain such an apparent paradox. Even so, blaming freezing on warming sounds a lot like when the Weatherguesser says "50% chance of precipitation" - s/he has full CYA either way !

I hope you, dear reader, can see that there is a good possibility that so-called Global Warming (i.e., a human-accelerated Greenhouse Effect) is just the boogeyman du jour, or, if there is a trend towards Global Warming, that planetwide natural processes exist (e.g., photosynthesis ) that can (and will) mitigate most if not all of its alleged adverse effects.  Plants all love CO2; and the more of it they get the more lushly do they grow, which means more food and oxygen for the ever growing billions of people on this Earth.  Not an altogether bad tradeoff, I'd say.

Take off the shroud of Global Warming and CO2 becomes an unlikely villain to play the role of Planet-Spoiler.  Take that away, and continued use of existing domestic and newly available fossil fuel resources does not seem even foolish, much less dangerous.  In fact, if the handwringers were successful in eliminating all traces of the Greenhouse Effect, all life on the planet would die!

---

The Ethanol Scam

Please don't be fooled by the "ethanol" scam.   Similar to the banning of Tetraethyl Lead, now it has been discovered that the ubiquitous MTBE-added gasoline is dangerous, and that it too shall be banned.  The replacement is to be ethanol, which usually comes from the farm states and the whole affair is little more than a thinly-disguised ploy to broaden the market for sugar beets, corn, and other agricultural products that can be distilled into industrial vodka - aka ethanol!  They use boogey-man scare tactics by promoting the false belief that adding ethanol to gasoline - a mixture often called "gasohol" - will reduce emissions of [ohmygawd] carbon dioxide.  The article at left (click to enlarge), written in November 2005 by a professor of chemistry, says that the net reduction of carbon dioxide from using gasohol in cars is only 1%, and not the 27% that is often cited by the pro-ethanol lobby.  Here's another thing to think about: The elemental carbon found in both ethanol and crude oil was taken from the air by plant life.  The ethanol that you burn with your gasoline today is putting back into the atmosphere the very same carbon that had been removed by corn plants only a few months before.  Where's the gain in that?

Next time you're filling up, look at the disclaimer label on the pump.  It will say something to the effect that 'ethanol added to this gasoline reduces the amount of carbon monoxide [CO] emissions', not carbon dioxide [CO2] emmissions.  In fact, the only way CO is being reduced is that the ethanol content transforms it into CO2, the same evil gas condemned by the clean-air bunch.     'But wait,' you say, 'There must be something good about ethanol!'  Yes, there is. To be fair, it must be noted that adding ethanol to gasoline does improve the Anti-Knock Properties of the fuel, which is a good thing.

Suggestions that gasohol burns "cleaner" are a lie.  Any and all reports that gasohol is "cheaper", is a damn lie: the pump-price of gasohol is usually subsidized by a reduction in fuel taxes and/or an increase in business or other indirect taxes.  No matter how they try to hide or disguise its true cost, you end up paying more.

The only tangible results from diluting gasoline with ethanol are (1) an increase in fuel cost to consumers, (2) reduced fuel economy and reduced power from their vehicles (gasohol contains less energy per gallon than pure gasoline), and (3) wealthier farmers (not necessarily a bad thing).  All of the above are confirmed in an excellent (very factual) April 2006 article in Business Week Magazine.  Many states, including my own of Colorado, have fallen for the "cleaner-burning" myth and have mandated that all the gasolines sold must be adulterated with [at least] 10% ethanol.

Just stop and think: All agricultural machinery and over-the-road trucks run on diesel fuel not gasoline or gasohol!  How much extra fossil energy is consumed as fuel for the agricultural machinery needed to support ethanol production (planting, harvesting, and transporting of the grain) and transforming it (with great expense) into ethanol?  How much fuel usage and pollution (both direct and indirect) is associated with manufacturing, transporting, and application of the fertilizers and weed killers required?  How much more fossil energy is consumed distilling, transporting, and mixing the ethanol with gasoline?  Then there's the energy use and pollution needed to build the agriculture, transport, and manufacturing machinery, and before that the factories needed to make them - it goes on and on!  This May 24 2007 article in The New York Times gives an excellent insight as to why all the pro-ethanol trumpeting by our President (and other government shills) has spooked the oil companies, effectively reducing the gasoline supply, causing pump prices to rise to the present cruelly high levels.

For those who rail against so-called "obscene profits" allegedly being made by the "oil companies," let us remember that Federal, state, and city taxes on gasoline take more than twice the amount now being retained as profits by the oil companies.  Also, anyone is free to buy oil company stocks and bonds, thereby qualifying themselves for a share of those "obscene profits".  And why is it that no one is calling for relief from, or investigation of, obscene taxes?

Oh, by the way, the new E85 fuel (darling of the I'm-So-Green gang) is nothing more than a hyper-adulteration of gasoline (15%) with ethanol (85%).  This excellent and informative WND article explains that "Used as E85, an acre of land would produce the equivalent of only 67.4 gallons of gasoline.  The daily gasoline consumption in the U.S. is 320,500,000 gallons... The entire 73.6 million acres of corn harvested in 2004 would supply only 15.5 days of gasoline replacement."  Guess what: such a diversion of drinkable alcohol into automobile fuel could well raise the price of Ripple, Thunderbird, Mogen David, sherry, port, and most other alcohol-added beverages in the USA.  Think of the hardship as all people - even the rich - find it is becoming ever more expensive to acquire these necessities of life.  

Even today (January 2007), the Washington Post says that the income-challenged folk of Mexico are now finding their tortillas are becoming unaffordable due to the market pressure of distilling ethanol from maize (corn).   Similarly, what will happen to the price of Frosted Flakes if Tony the Tiger has to compete with Suburbans and Escalades for corn?  This April 2007 article documents how diverting corn and other food items into the production of ethanol for vehicle fuel is increasing the price of beef and other meats.  Bye Bye Bar-B-Q, Hello Turkey Tax...

A relative of mine in Goodland, Kansas, grows corn.  Since Kansas is an arid state, he must use several huge center pivot irrigation systems, to make it grow.  Each one uses a powerful V-8 engine to pump water from the deep Ogallala_Aquifer.  Much of the water in its pore spaces is ancient paleowater, dating back to the last ice age, and is being replaced far slower than the rate of usage.  The USGS estimates that total water storage in the aquifer was about 2,925 million acre feet (3,608 km³) in 2005.  This is a decline of about 253 million acre feet (312 km³) (or 9%) since substantial ground-water irrigation development began, in the 1950s.  By the way, my relative says it costs $2,000 per month in natural gas to run each V-8 engine, and each runs about 6 months during the growing season.  So let's see, is it better to run out of fossil oil, fossil gas, or "fossil water"?  Is growing more corn to make fuel for our cars really so green after all ???
BACK TO TOP    STOP THE MADNESS

---

Become Well Informed by reading these Wikipedia articles that contain a wealth of spinless information on these bio-fuel subjects: (1) Butanol, a fuel even "greener" than (2) Ethanol, even (3) Biodiesel, and (4) Vegetable oil.  RON and MON: (5) Octane ratings revealed.

---

******* Alternative Energy *******

This impressive article reveals the economic and environmental fallacies surrounding the greenies push for Alternative (aka "Renewable") Energy.  The article can be summarized like this:

About 50 megawatts of electricity is typically produced with a coal fired generating plant, as is in common use today.  Such a plant requires only two to five acres of land.

Getting the same 50 megawatts from "Solar Energy" (via photovoltaic panels) means covering a minimum of 1,000 acres with solar panels.  No one ever counts the mining, manufacturing, energy, and environmental costs of acquiring those solar panels in the first place.  And how much will it cost to clean all those "windows" (or mirrors) twice a month to maintain efficiency?

A 50-megawatt wind farm requires even more land: at least 4,000 acres.  Like solar, wind proponents never publicise the mining, manufacturing, energy, and environmental costs of acquiring those huge machines in the first place.

95% of Wind Turbine manufacturers, including suppliers of component sub-assemblies (gearboxes, blades, generators, etc.), are foreign operations - very bad for US Balance Of Trade.

Environmental impacts of massive wind and solar alternative energy "solutions" become truly staggering.  To produce the estimated 218 gigawatts of new electricity America will need by 2010, using only wind or solar power, we would have to blanket 9,400,000 acres with wind mills and/or solar panels.

To make a meaningful contribution to "fossil energy independence," both wind and solar power will mean paving over hundreds of thousands of acres of desert and grassland habitat, destroying most if not all of their resident plant and animal life.

Are these the kinds of "green sacrifices" you are ready to make to appease the gods of green?  It really seems that basing such sweeping commitments on Politically Correct "science" directed and sponsored by the self-serving United Nations is risky business.

BACK TO TOP   STOP THE MADNESS

---

The T. Boone Pickens Energy Plan

Who is this old guy, anyway?  He is T. Boone Pickens, a rich "Texas Oil Man" who has a remarkable energy independence plan based on massive increases in the use of natural gas and wind power.  Even though he looks a little like Jimmy Carter (don't hold that against him), his forward-looking plan gives America a chance to become completely energy independent.  Note that it does not involve either nuclear energy or the United Nations.  Basically Pickens advocates using additional wind power to replace the energy from natural gas - energy currently being used to generate electricity.  The natural gas energy thus freed up would be used to replace the use of gasoline and diesel in many cars and trucks (after some modest modifications).  Voila! - No more Arab oil need be bought!   Give his plan a careful look and be sure to watch his video.  The link within this sentence takes you to another Pickens website where you can learn more and join his citizen-army of supporters (I may just do that myself).  If tens [hundreds?] of thousands of Americans join up (50,000 have as of July 2008), both of the clueless demopublican Presidential candidates will have to take notice and respond.
BACK TO TOP   STOP THE MADNESS

---

Here is a link to a sane and supporting viewpoint for management of both fossil and alternative fuels.  After considering all these factors, any thinking person would have to agree that neither gasohol or E85 has a positive net fuel energy balance.  The total fuel energy expended in producing the ethanol adulterant exceeds the energy content of the product, and the slowing of so-called Global Warming by its use in vehicle fuels is negligible, if anything possibly even making it worse.  Why?   Because, although distilling corn yields ethanol, it also yields and two major by-products: cattle food (quickly turned into cattle-exhaust: CO2 and methane), and [gasp] carbon dioxide.  Guess what: All 72 of the plants now producing ethanol in the United States are being powered by high-priced (and going higher) natural gas.  Did you ever wonder why your home heating bills keep going up and up?  More water vapor, more CO2, more methane, and higher prices for booze, beer, and breakfast food.  E85 is such a deal...

Although the inception date of my essay here was mid-2005, this excellent April 2007 WND article echoes most of my talking points.  The original Heritage Foundation report on which the WND article is based also supports my opinions.  I am humbled.

---

Oh yes - did ethanolists forget to tell you? - ethanol is both a powerful corrosive and a powerful solvent.  By April 2007, the non-profit, independent Underwriters Laboratories (UL) had not found - much less approved - a safe long-term design for dispenser pumps (how about storage tanks?) that can resist, at an affordable cost, being rusted and/or dissolved away by this oh-so-green fuel.

On Oct. 5, 2006, UL suspended authorization for manufacturers to use UL Markings (Listing or Recognition) on components for fuel-dispensing devices that specifically reference compatibility with alcohol-blended fuels that contain greater than 15 percent alcohol (i.e., ethanol, methanol or other alcohols).  Racing cars have long used methanol, also a corrosive solvent, as fuel but the modifications required to prevent damage to engine and fuel systems are very expensive.  One of the mods needed for family cars that run on E85 is 40% larger fuel injectors, needed to compensate for E85 reductions in both power and fuel economy [when compared with pure gasoline].

Unlike racing cars and pit equipment, family cars and filling stations must remain safe and reliable for many years without major inspection and repair.  Who will take the blame and pay the bills when thousands of ethanol spills begin to pollute the ground water?  How many engine fires (a common result of corroded fuel systems) will it take to make people wish they had not been so quick to abandon the reliable fuel that had served all of us so well for 100 years?

---

Carbon Credits vs Porn Credits

Both houses of the US Congress, in Full Global Warming Hysteria Mode, have sought to appease the UN and Mr. Gore by passing legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions.  The vote was timed to coincide with (surprise, surprise) the 2007 U.N. conference on climate change in Bali, Indonesia.  Within 12 years this law will cause a net loss of between 1.5 and 3.4 million American jobs.  Oh yes, the law also requires that polluting industries must buy "carbon credits" from unspecified "others."

Imagine such a thing as "porn credits," where persons who do not molest children are encouraged to sell their benign "sexual footprint" to pedophiles, thereby "offsetting" the harm done to victimized children.  Ridiculous (and tragic)!  

The people at TerraPass.com say that, if only I would buy an $80 TerraPass from them, I could [somehow] atone for one years worth of CO2 emitted by my 2002 minivan.  For full absolution I would have to pay another $50 annually for the 10,200 pounds of CO2 said to be spewed by my 1996 minivan (there were no figures given - or funds solicited - for my 250cc and 1800cc motorcycles).  Realizing my consummate guilt in precipitating the coming Global Warming Disaster (and wanting to tabulate the effects of my drinking habits), on the last day of February 2007 I sent a short (but pleasant) email to the TerraPass contact listed, one Adam Stein (adam@terrapass.com):

"Dear TerraPass,

I would like to see numbers on the CO2 emitted annually by common carbonated beverages such as soft drinks and beer.  I guess we shouldn't overlook Champagne and various effervescent "health waters" either.  If we all drank plain water, both the people and the planet would benefit.  And you say... ?"

Admirably Mr. Stein replied promptly, but he did so with unexpected (and uncalled-for) flip condescension:

"We say drink whatever you want, as long as you continue to take your medication. Also, if you're going to be purposefully ignorant, at least try to be funny.   No response necessary. Your email won't get through our spam filter."

The question was an honest request for information I did not have, everyone should know, and no one has ever reported on, but perhaps Adam sensed that the answer might be, at best, an inconvenient truth - a huge one, perhaps.  My apologies to him for my lack of humor, but I always try to make up for it with irony and/or sarcasm.

We can be sure that TerraPass is helping to save the planet because, in early January 2008, I was driving my trusty V-6 minivan east on I-70 when a GMC Suburban blasted past me doing at least 85 mph (135 kph).  I caught a glimpse of a "TerraPass Vehicle" bumper sticker as he sped by. It just warmed my heart to know that, through the magic of TerraPass, the huge 'Burb V-8 was belching only oh-so-clean, officially carbon-offset & credited, CO2.
Are we all feeling cooler yet?

By the way, an April, 2007 Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the trading of carbon-offsets, suggesting some organizations are paying for emissions reductions that do not actually take place.  Surprise, surprise...

For anyone interested in a sane, unbiased, unspun, unpoliticized, and apolitically-correct treatment of the current state of Planet Earth and its climate trends, this excellent New American article (December 2009) offers a breath of fresh - not hot - air.
BACK TO TOP    STOP THE MADNESS

---

There have been several good ideas, like the experimental Honda car that leaves the air in its wake cleaner than before, and the catalytic radiator developed several years ago by Volvo which changes most of the pollutants that pass through it into... (cotton candy?) - I've forgotten what, exactly.  The problem is that these excellent ideas usually languish due to the high cost of their implementation.  I see pollution from fossil fuel as an economics management problem, not a scientific jihad.

If the doomsday oil posse is correct, and scarcity of supply causes the price of oil to skyrocket, then why are future crude oil prices staying so relatively low - even out to December, 2015?  Why are the doomsayers not buying oil futures and options right now so they can profit from their own dire predictions?  Perhaps they understand the real truth behind what this sage economist says: "Our planet will never run out of crude oil" - and he gives us the simple reasons why.

---

The Dan Martin Energy Plan

The truth is, We The People are victims of political whore/wimps that are bending over to the pressures of environmental and other political lobbyists.  The current price of gasoline ($5/gal in some places in mid-July 2008) is the result of: (1) years of failure to keep refineries modernized, (2) allowing any city that wishes to specify its own designer-blend of gasoline, (3) failing to utilize (i.e., to drill for more) domestic oil and other energy resources, and (4) the relentless devaluation of the US Dollar as the Federal Reserve continues to inflate the world economy with worthless fiat money.  

Good examples of the latter are "paying for" [by printing more dollars] the Iraq War and the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and Wall Street and General Motors, and Ford, and the big banks, and...)  I for one think that the public and political will to resolve these problems will never materialize until gasoline exceeds $7 per gallon.  But, and mark my words on this, soon as We The People get serious about energy independence in the USA (e.g., 'drill here, drill now'), the A-rabs and other foreign energy producers will lower the price of crude oil for awhile, but only long enough to lull Americans into economic slumber (and energy stupidity) once again.

Maybe if we all join up with T. Boone Pickens energy-army, President Bojohn McBama and our equally clueless Congress will have to see the light of day and adopt Pickens Energy Plan (or at least do something).  If they do not or will not, it will surely be time for a People's Midnight Torch-and-Pitchfork March on Washington, DC.  We can call it Drillstock - would you march with me?

Meanwhile, buy and ride a motorcycle or motor scooter (you can download a 2.5Mb .pdf Honda Scooter brochure here).  My wife's 250cc Honda scooter (at right) goes 70+ mph and gets 70 mpg (her ear-to-ear grin can barely hide under that helmet!)   My 600cc Honda scooter (left) goes 100+ mph and gets 50 mpg.  Even my 1300cc bike (see panoroma below) gets 47 mpg, touring the mountains of Colorado!  Try two wheels (anyone can learn) - you deserve some fun on the road and relief from cramps at the gas pump.

BACK TO TOP    STOP THE MADNESS

What about nuclear energy as an alternative?  I oppose it on the grounds that the genetic and environmental hazards far exceed the value of the energy produced.  I am prepared to offer an olive branch to the pro-nuclear clan - at least to the extent that more advanced nuclear reactors may make Chernobyl and TMI-type accidents way less likely, but they still do not address the major problem of long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.  Short of flying this nuclear dung into the sun, there is no such thing as actual permanent, safe disposal.

Learn more about Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters.  With utter lack of concern for our genetic future, this September 2005 article from U.S. News & World Report shows how the world Energy Industry is gearing up to launch multiple new nuclear plants.   Candidate McCain wants to build 45 more of them.  And this alarming article documents how residents of a small American town are apparently eager to sell out their collective genetic future for a few jobs and fast money.  Fools gold, I think.

I maintain that 40-50 more years of fossil fuel and modest alternative power usage could safely buy mankind the time needed to research and develop a viable and non-nuclear fission alternative - a nuclear fusion process comes to mind.  More likely, major breakthroughs in solar-cell, battery, and/or fuel-cell technology could be all that we need to bail us out of nuclear and fossil-fuel bondage - forever and ever, Amen.

BACK TO TOP    STOP THE MADNESS

In this eye-opener #1 you will learn that there's an abundance of untapped, non-nuclear American resources available that is both safe and economical.  It can provide all our fuel needs, for the next 40 years, without further kowtowing to the America-hating Arabs, or paying any more ransom to the rabid dictators of South America.  Sweet.  And in this almost fairy-tale eye-opener #2 you will learn even more exciting info about nearly unlimited fuel-energy waiting within huge deposits of Colorado oil shale.  Huge new fields of untapped natural gas in Texas have recently been discovered.  Canada has lots of oil sands, too, but like everywhere else environmentalists want to stop its production.   In late 2008, the death of 500 ducks has given the environmentalists new ammunition to stop oil sand processing in Canada.    Truth is, there is no shortage of oil and more new oil than we can ever use is being made, in real time, by natural processes.

As a titillating sidebar, the Great Global Warming Hoax has convinced your twisted Big Brother that he needs to start taking showers with you.  Are we having fun yet?

Vast new sources of available energy are being developed by Japan:  Methane hydrate, has huge potential for easing many nations economic dependence on OPEC oil prices and policy.    Remember, it is the element carbon that drives all life (and affects much of the weather) on our planet.  Various carbon-containing molecules (e.g., CO2, sugar, ethanol) are continuously being formed by the life and death of organisms, and from other processes both natural and manmade.  In absolutely none of these processes is carbon being either created or destroyed.  The only change is in the compound or state of the carbon, such as when methane hydrate (or crude oil) is refined or burned.  In other words, the global carbon budget is always in balance, no matter where an individual atom of carbon may find itself at any particular time.

BOTTOM LINE: We don't need any more Arab oil and we certainly don't need any more Nuclear powerplants !!

The new Senate Energy bill passed in 2007 provides that the US Department of Energy would be allowed to guarantee 100 percent of the loans and up to 80 percent of the total cost to build new nuclear reactors.  Power companies have tentative plans to build 28 new reactors at 19 sites around the country.   What it all means is that We The People are co-signing the loans needed to erect more nuclear monsters - sunscreen not included.  Yet nowhere in the frenzy to promote more nuclear power plants is any mention of how to store their spent fuel.  This WND article documents a looming disaster with Russian nuclear fuel that is about to happen.  Basically, the US Congress is batting 1,000 on Energy Stupidity, as this article clearly documents.  My my own state of Colorado now seeks to batter its struggling petrogas industry with more taxes.

Some Australians (the wise ones) are currently (March 2007) in an ominous struggle against being force-fed dozens of new nuclear powerplants, propelled by government invocation of the holy-green-gods of "Renewable Energy" and "Global Warming."  You can read the sensible side of the debate here at NuclearFlower.com.  In a very happy outcome, late-2007 changes in the Australian government seem to have halted plans for nuclear expansion in that country.  The Brits also have a group of wise folks who oppose the forces seeking to greatly increase England's number of nuclear powerplants.  Read about their furious struggle here at nonewnukes.net.  In March 2007 the European Union has begun to rev up its collective nuclear bandwagon so as to get carbon credits for not making more so-called greenhouse gasses (mostly CO2).

The pro-Nuke folks never seem to address the question of 'just where does all their uranium fuel come from, anyway?'  Urainium consumption worldwide is almost twice the quantity that is being produced, making for a rapidly growing shortage of uranium.  The pro-Nuclear activists and Global-Warming handwringers are neglecting to warn us that, by switching from fossil fuels to nuclear energy, we are just trading-in one type of fuel shortage for another!!  Further, no one ever mentions that mining, transportation, and purification of uranium ore is highly, almost 100%, dependent on fossil fuel.  So the highly touted "freedom" that nuclear energy supposedly grants from Arab-oil-dependence is merely a hollow argument based on a false premise.