BABY, IT'S COLD OUTSIDE

Are you on board with the man-made global warming / climate change crowd? Are you questioning every kilowatt hour you use to light and heat your home and workplace? Are you buying compact fluorescent mercury light bulbs, thinking you are a good global citizen? Are you on board with Smart Growth and Greenways that regulate property out of the hands of private ownership for the sake of "saving the planet?" Are you wracking your brain to figure out how you can "save the planet" from yourself? Are you wondering why it's so cold outside when they told us we are frying the planet with our cars and cow emissions?

Welcome to Dystopia, where clever corporate moguls and sly politicians have manufactured a premise to make you think you are a big problem to our environment. Madison Avenue, Wall Street, and all levels of government / central planners have figured out a way to capitalize on mass hysteria created by.....themselves.

While you are contemplating your sins against the earth, you might want to look at some actual data on carbon emissions to assuage your guilt.

From Al Fin
"The primary greenhouse gases listed in order of their contribution to the effect are: Water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. There are others but their concentrations in the atmosphere are so small they don’t contribute much effect. Water vapor and clouds are about 93% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide about 5%, nitrous oxide about 0.95% and methane contributes about 0.36%. It’s the combined greenhouse warming from these gases that gives the earth its current average temperature. Making energy from fossil fuels is adding about 3% of the carbon dioxide added to the air each year. From that the total human component of the greenhouse effect is therefore about 3% of the total carbon dioxide component of the greenhouse effect which is 5%. That gives us a value of 0.1% from man made carbon dioxide.


From Art Horn at Energy Tribune.com
"The important question is how much effect does burning fossil fuels have on the temperature of the earth? The following is simplistic but makes a lot of sense to me. The average temperature of earth is 59 degrees. Carbon dioxide is 5% of the greenhouse effect so 5% of 59 degrees is 2.95 or about 3 degrees Fahrenheit. All of the carbon dioxide in the air keeps the earth 3 degrees warmer than if there were none (5% of 59 degrees). The human component of the greenhouse warming is 3 percent of 3 degrees or 0.1 degree Fahrenheit or one tenth of one degree. So our contribution to the total greenhouse effect is very small. The large exchanges of carbon that take place in nature dwarf the human contribution and will continue to do so in the future.

Most of us in the developed world, who have heating and cooling systems in our homes and workplaces, try to keep our environments at a temperature that enhances our productivity. If it's too cold, people tend to become uncomfortable and wrap up in bundles of clothing that impede their mobility and make them unproductive. If it's too hot, people are drenched in sweat, collapse from the heat, or suffer from lethargy. Optimum temperatures for human productivity, depending on the activity, would seem to be between 64 degrees and 75 degrees. Keeping these temperatures reliable for our living and work environments requires burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel burning has created the most productive civilization in the history of the earth.

As yet, solar and wind energies are methods that take more energy to create than they produce. They are inefficient and cost much more than the market will bear. They are cumbersome, expensive, and the return on investment is a negative.

For over one hundred years, there have been people publishing dire warnings about either global warming or the return of another ice age. These prophesies have been batted back and forth like a tennis ball. About every 10 to 30 to 50 years, someone comes up with a new doomsday climate scenario to make people think the end is near. The difference this time around is that powerful and wealthy players have discovered a way to soak the public on the premise and used our tax dollars to indoctrinate innocent school children into their scheme. The catastrophe we face this time around is not climate related, but from the economic disaster global warming promoters are using to redistribute wealth, wealth into their own pocketbooks.

The Obama administration is full of climate catastrophe enthusiasts who are busy in the EPA regulating higher energy costs to the public. More than that, they are implementing energy starvation policies which are making our energy more expensive. As demand goes up, Obama creates a scarcity of supply, which in turn makes our prices go up. The Obama campaign was financed by individuals, corporations, and investment banks who are counting on raking in billions from carbon offset trading and regulations. Back scratching seems to be one of Obama's favorite pastimes...besides golf, that is.

As your energy costs at your home and business climb into the stratosphere, and the winter temperatures continue to slide down into the coldest winter we've seen in 100 years, you might want to ask yourself, "What was that global warming fee for reducing carbon emissions attached to my bill last month?" When you go to the gas station and find your wallet is five pounds lighter, you might ask yourself, "Why is the EPA shutting down Texas refineries to lower carbon emissions?" And when your eyesight fades from those dim and dangerous mercury bulbs you were told you must use to "save the planet," you might want to send the opthamologist's bill to the White House.

Baby, it's cold outside. And if you still believe in man-caused global warming, you just might want to do some more research and relieve yourself of the sins you have not committed towards the planet. You might have a list of other sins, but ruining the planet from heating your home, driving your car, or using incandescent light bulbs are not included in that list. Take a hot bath, pour yourself a nice hot toddy, crank up the furnace, order a pizza delivery, turn on all of the incandescent lights, put a good movie in the DVD player, and relax. And when the bills come in for using all that nasty carbon energy, thank President Obama for increasing those bills in order to save 0.1% of carbon dioxide which will have little to no affect on the planet at all.


Addendum: Canadian Centre For Occupational Health and Safety
"To have "thermal comfort" means that a person wearing a normal amount of clothing feels neither too cold nor too warm. Thermal comfort is important both for one's well-being and for productivity. It can be achieved only when the air temperature, humidity and air movement are within the specified range often referred to as the "comfort zone".
"Maintaining constant thermal conditions in the offices is important. Even minor deviation from comfort may be stressful and affect performance and safety. Workers already under stress are less tolerant of uncomfortable conditions."

Also Published at Pundit House.com

OBAMA IS PART OF ECO-TERRORISM = IT ISN'T YOU, IT'S THEM

Paul Driessen from Climate Depot has written a superb article explaining exactly what you need to know about Climate Change and the United Nations screwing with our ability to procure and maintain energy for our populations. I was inspired to copy the entire article here for you. So many villains, it is hard to name them all. Please read the article below and pass it along to any and all of your friends and family!!

In order to "get it" you have to understand how and why the propagandists have completely ruined the brains of mush of the mass public to get people on board with this insane Climate Change idiocy! It's all about money and control and power and socialist tyranny. Read on:

Misguided Environmentalists Are Destroying Biodiversity
by Paul Driessen

The Soviet Union's demise helped usher in manmade catastrophic global warming as the new "central organizing principle of civilization." Now, global warming is giving way to a growing recognition that: climate change is primarily natural, cyclical and moderate; China, India and other countries will not sacrifice CO2-generating economic growth to prevent speculative climate crises; and carbon taxes strangle competitiveness, destroy jobs and send families into fuel poverty.

Thus, while not recanting predictions of disastrous climate change, environmental activists and the United Nations are already launching a new campaign. The real threat to the planet, they now assert, is the impact of modern energy technologies and civilization on biodiversity. The case for saving species, they insist, is even "more powerful" than the need to address climate change.

They seek to preserve biodiversity by controlling people's energy use, economic activities and population - through new regulations and taxes under the auspices of the United Nations and global treaties. These efforts, they claim, will generate benefits "worth $4-5 trillion per year" (based on questionable studies and computer models that underscore the intrinsic value of species and biodiversity).

To accept these claims, one would have to ignore the sordid history of Climategate and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - and believe a larger, more powerful United Nations will somehow ensure honesty, transparency, and accountability for misfeasance, misrepresentation, intimidation, and adverse impacts on people and economic growth. One would also have to ignore a growing body of evidence that:

The greatest threats to the world's species are misguided environmental and anti-technology policies.

Among the policies adversely impacting biodiversity are the following.

* Intense opposition to coal, gas, nuclear and hydroelectric plants for generating the electricity that two billion people worldwide so desperately need. Not only does this force people to rely on open fires for heating and cooking - perpetuating poverty, lung disease and premature death. It also destroys mountain gorilla and other wildlife habitats, as people cut trees for fires and charcoal.

China and India are self-financing hundreds of power projects, to avoid conditions placed by wealthy countries on World Bank and other international loans. But poor countries must still rely on such loans - and thus must run gauntlets laid down by regulators and environmental activists who oppose critically needed power plants and the economic growth and middle class living standards the plants generate.

* Steadfast promotion of expensive, unreliable wind and solar power. Wind turbines slice up birds and collapse bat lungs. Turbines and solar arrays would have to cover millions of acres to provide power for cities. They require ultra-long transmission lines and backup gas generators, and consume millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, polymers and rare earth (lanthanide) minerals - all of which have to extracted from the Earth and processed into finished products, burning fossil fuels and generating mining wastes and air and water pollution.

Con Ed had to generate some 13,500 megawatts to meet New York City's air conditioning and other electricity needs during the recent July heat wave. The 600-turbine Roscoe wind farm blankets 100,000 Texas acres to generate 780 MW at full capacity. That means NYC would need a wind farm 1.6 times the size of Connecticut (5 million acres or 2 million hectares), if the turbines are running at an average 30% of capacity. But during the heat wave, there's barely a breeze.

Now multiply that habitat demand times the world's biggest cities, and calculate the biodiversity impact. No wonder the wind industry wants exemptions from endangered species rules and environmental impact studies that hyper-regulate fossil fuel and nuclear companies. No wonder Senator Diane Feinstein has introduced legislation to prohibit solar panel installations in the super-sunny Mojave Desert.

* Equally passionate advocacy for biofuels, especially ethanol. Every 7 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol requires crops grown on an area the size of Indiana (23 million acres) - and Congress now wants the USA to produce 20 billion gallons of EtOH annually by 2020. In addition to expropriating vast crop land and wildlife habitat, ethanol production requires billions of gallons of water, millions of tons of fertilizer and insecticides, and enormous quantities of natural gas and diesel fuel to power tractors, tanker trucks and conversion plants - to distill a fuel that gets 20% fewer mpg than gasoline.

And yet, President Obama told a Ghanaian audience in July 2009 that malnourished Africa should forego even gas-fired electricity generators in favor of wind, solar and biofuel power. The continent and its arid, nutrient-depleted soils already cannot feed their populations adequately, and the President wants them to divert cropland and wildlife habitats to biofuels. Meanwhile, environmental activists continue to ...

* Oppose biotechnology, genetically engineered crops and even hybrid seeds. These specialized crops survive better during droughts, increase farm family incomes, improve nutrition, and reduce the need for insecticides. They offer the best hope for growing more biofuel crops on less acreage.

The New York Times says we can ill afford "not to make the best use of genetic engineering." If we "allow propaganda to trump science, then the potential for global agriculture to be productive, diverse and sustainable will go unfulfilled." The late Dr. Norman Borlaug warned that forcing the world to rely on organic and traditional farming to feed even current populations would require plowing under nearly every remaining acre of forest and grassland habitat. That's without factoring in biofuels.

And yet, environmentalists and EU bureaucrats threaten African nations with punitive boycotts if they plant biotech crops. Radical greens want Third World farmers to rely on "traditional" seeds and agricultural methods, and oppose the use of seeds that have been "touched by corporations."

* Environmentalists also oppose timber cutting and even tree thinning and mechanized fire suppression on vast acreage of US national forests. Too often the result is fiery conflagrations that incinerate trees, wildlife, soil and streams, causing extensive erosion and long-term habitat loss.

* Topping it off, the Environmental Protection Agency's recent endangerment decision, low-carbon fuel standards, and power plant emission rules will force even greater expansion of wind, solar and biofuel use, further impacting habitats and biodiversity.

It is bad enough that "biodiversity stabilization" is a reprise of past government-environmentalist eco-scares. Like its predecessors, the new program offers horrifying predictions of a dying planet - backed by little more than dubious theories, assumptions, assertions and statistics, fed into fancy computer models that generate ominous scenarios and graphics. It also proposes the same tired "solutions" - more taxes, regulations, and government control over lives, energy development and economic growth.

The far greater problem is that the UN, EPA, "mainstream media" and political establishment are ignoring the real threats to habitats, species and biodiversity: the anti-energy, anti-technology, anti-people agenda of radical green ideology.

We now have an opportunity to make Earth a better place for people and the natural world. We need to reject this agenda, demand sound science and solid evidence that a treat exists, and recognize that modern technology actually offers the best hope for protecting the diversity of species.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow which sponsors the All Pain No Gain education campaign and petition against job-killing global warming policies, and the ClimateDepot website for the latest news and views on climate change. He is also a senior policy advisor to the Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death

The Tyrants of Climate Change

"Holstein Grazing"
8X10
Oil on Panel
Available

Click on picture to enlarge the view.


Contact to Purchase

Below is an editorial I wrote that was published recently by our local newspaper:

The Tyrants of Climate Change

The onslaught against nature, both human nature and the nature of the planet on which we live, by the powerful political environmentalist zealots continues to dismay, disappoint, and disgust me. In order to combat this din of lies and distortions, I am compelled to write to you in order to at least help to educate the public who is ultimately paying a terrible price for being duped.

Motive here is an important factor. Just when you think we have evolved past the elitist structure where royalty take the spoils of the land and from the people who do the labor, now we find ourselves in the largest power grab that has ever taken place in the history of civilization. Think about it. If you can take away and tax the very natural resources people need to live, then you have complete and total power over all of the masses. Cite any tyranny from history and you will see that, where force takes away basic abilities to survive in a particular environment, tyranny wins. The environmentalist movement of today is no different than the tyrannies of the past, taking away basic necessities from the needs of the people. It’s a power grab like you have never seen.

I know that for years the government schools have been indoctrinating students and misrepresenting facts in order to support the government funding they receive. But how can it be that the majority of the public has completely missed the most basic science lesson of photosynthesis? As any major tyrant will tell you, if you indoctrinate youth into your lies, distortions, and way of thinking, you can get away with anything.

If you use the illogic of the EPA taxing cow emissions, then you can most certainly tax humans for breathing. We inhale oxygen and exhale that horrible pollutant, carbon dioxide, i.e. CO2. Especially we need to come up with a very punitive tax on all those marathoners who are expelling tons of carbon dioxide while training and racing!! (Did you just sneeze? Bless you...Now give the EPA some more money.)

Oh, we’re a blight on the planet. First we’ll try to convince people to pay for “carbon credits” voluntarily. As soon as we get them used to that idea, then we can impose the tax through force. First though, to get the process started, let’s tax cow emissions! That way we can take money away from the people who need milk for strong bones and teeth, make it more expensive, reserve it for just those rich elitists who can afford it, and condemn those dastardly farmers who keep cows.

Now for the facts on Carbon Dioxide:

The following article is from SYLVAN H. WITTWER, professor emeritus of horticulture at Michigan State University, directed the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station for 20 years, and chaired the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council. He is the author of the world's leading textbook on greenhouse vegetables, and is co-author, most recently, of Feeding a Billion: Frontiers in Chinese Agriculture.

“A fascinating report was published by scientists with the Finnish Forest Research Institute in the April 3, 1992 issue of Science magazine. The researchers reported a 25 to 30 percent increase in the growing stock of forests in Austria, Finland, France, Sweden, Switzerland, and West Germany between 1971 and 1990, and attributed this growth in part to a 9 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the same period.

One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of Planet Earth would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

You read that correctly. Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon dioxide, and the more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities, improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation.

This good news about carbon dioxide has been all but ignored in alarmist discussions about possible global climate changes. CO2-related benefits were barely mentioned at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June, where the rising level of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" was decried as the world's greatest environmental threat. The Rio Summit ended with the United States and over 150 other nations signing a Framework Convention on Climate Change, committing themselves to stabilizing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases at 1990 levels.”

Not to mention Al Gore’s total insanity and the dire promises of Obama to exacerbate this power grab, I will cite this government outrage: “William K. Reilly, President Bush's administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, defends the $20 billion in costs that the Clean Air Act of 1990 has imposed on the U.S. economy, in part on the grounds that it "will eliminate 56 billion pounds of pollutants annually, many of them greenhouse gases." (carbon dioxide / CO2)

And yet, for over 100 years, nurserymen have been adding carbon dioxide to their greenhouses to raise the yields of vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants. And for decades, it has been well known among botanists, biochemists, agriculturalists, and foresters that a shortage of carbon dioxide is the most common limiting factor preventing photosynthesis from proceeding more efficiently.”

This article is only a small piece of the factual science that the public needs to know. When the masses are rendered so weak in knowledge, in sustaining food supplies and in financial resources, there is no ability to combat tyranny. I am very worried that we are beyond recompense. Is this national tragedy beyond anyone’s ability to fight back?

I leave you with this question: How can the people of the United States stand up against the new “royalty” of their politicians and bureaucratic administrators who are taking by force their liberty and fortunes, however large or small, from them? When and where is the tea party? Count me in!