EPA Rules Force Shell Oil to Abandom Oil Drilling

Posted by courage On April - 25 - 2011

The question today is how does a government agency stacked with bureaucratic slugs, who have no accountability to the American people, wield the power to prevent a private oil company from drilling?

Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.

No government agency should have the power to enact laws or as they prefer to call them rules which prevent companies from doing business.  Agencies should have the power of oversight to enforce laws created by Congress, not blanket power to essentially shut down a private enterprise from doing business.

Read the rest of this entry »

Senate Energy Bill… Give-Aways and Enticements

Posted by courage On August - 2 - 2010

The House cap and trade bill is a disaster. Many, myself included, hoped this bad legislation which passed the House would wither on the vine, especially after email-gate broke. Anyone paying attention heard Harry Reid make statements that cap and trade in the Senate is dead, I sighed in relief.

But wait, the Senate last week unveiled their version of this draconian legislation, shorter in length but no less harmful to the freedom, liberty and fiscal well-being of the American people.

Poison Pill: The New Senate Energy Bill
By Brain Sussman

The latest Senate energy bill, quietly unveiled last week, looks like sweet compromise on radical measures like cap and trade, but buried within is a bitter poison pill that will could be swallowed in a vote that may come this week.

Unlike the 1,200-page House of Representatives energy bill, which passed last year, this scaled-down proposal does not call for an 83-percent reduction in greenhouse gases (or any reduction in greenhouse gases) and contains no mention of a cap-and-trade scheme. Also contrary to the House bill, this one does not provide a family of four earning up to $55,000 with a monthly stipend — deposited directly into their bank accounts — to offset higher energy costs. It also does not supply three years of unemployment benefits at 70 percent of former wages — plus job retraining and relocation — to those whose jobs are shipped overseas, as prescribed in the House bill.

Instead, at a glance (which is the way most in Congress ever seem to examine legislation), this bill appears rather easy to take. Most of its 357 pages are devoted to sections entitled “Oil Spill Response,” “Reducing Oil Consumption,” “Improving Energy Security,” and “Protecting the Environment.” There’s even a portion devoted to further grill BP via subpoena power. With sugar-coating like this, the sixty votes necessary to pass seem possible.

However, beneath the glaze, there’s a clot of overpowering government spending and social engineering.

For example, electric vehicles are pushed via the bill’s “Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2010.” No surprise here, particularly since the government has a 61% stake in General Motors and Chevy’s electro-mobile, the Volt. Besides this Act allowing the feds to spend $25 million on new electric cars for their official fleet, there’s an astounding electric car welfare program. Section 2116 explains that 400,000 such vehicles will be virtually given away at low cost — or perhaps no cost — to people living in “selected communities diverse in population” and “demographics.”

Additionally, pages 264-265 require that any new construction or remodel of an existing structure must include the installation of proper hookups for charging an electric vehicle. So even if you have no intention of owning such a car, adding that extra bedroom will require you to spend additional money to install battery-charging infrastructure in your garage.

Take the time to read the rest of this article at the link above.  Consider this, what will happen if the American people choose not to take advantage of these incentives or that the percentage of people is far below what the government expects?

To get up-to-speed on cap and trade see the link above for additional articles.

Climate Change Legislation on the Horizon

Posted by courage On March - 23 - 2010

After a hard-fought victory on health care reform, President Barack Obama’s allies in Congress are setting their sights on climate change — but some on both sides are already crying foul.Environmentalists hope Obama will seize on new political momentum to push forward climate legislation, though some observers question whether he would seek another divisive vote as November congressional elections approach.

Senator John Kerry, who has spearheaded climate legislation, said that White House officials can now “pour their energy and attention” into the issue after Sunday’s down-to-the-wire vote on expanding health care coverage.

“In the wake of health care’s passage, we have a strong case to make that this can be the next breakthrough legislative fight,” the Massachusetts Democrat argued. “Climate legislation is the single best opportunity we have to create jobs, reduce pollution and stop sending billions overseas for foreign oil from countries that would do us harm,” Kerry said.

“If we sell those arguments we’ve got a winning issue on jobs, on security and on public health. This can happen.”

For anyone who has followed the cap and trade debate this should come as no surprise.  As previously written on this blog, the supporters of Cap and Trade will attempt to cite job creation as an overwhelming support factor for the passage, the truth is Spain (which has been touted as the a model for the United States law) has lost 2.2 jobs for each new “green” job created.  (see here) What piqued my interest was the emphasis on security in Kerry’s statement.  And this is why…

Read the rest of this entry »


ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.


Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Scientific data which exposes the environmental justice hoax continues to be published and lame main stream media is still ignoring this gigantic deception.  All the global warming hysterics can stop the mantra of the “science is settled.”  The science is NOT settled and claims that there are universal agreement by world scientists is a lie.

Read the rest of this entry »

Addressing the Lies, Climate Hysterics Want You to Believe

Posted by courage On December - 16 - 2009

Interesting list detailing why climate change is natural and NOT man-made.

Climate Change Is Natural: 100 Reasons Why

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

Continue reading at the above link.

Lord Monckton is a former science policy adviser to Prime Minister Margret Thatcher and played a key role in a legal challenge heard in the High Court of Justice regarding Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”  The focus in the  court case were statistics and claims from the movie which offered little to none scientific validity.

The court case arose from concern that the movie was being shown as indisputable science to school age children across Great Britain and did not carry opposing scientific data which directly contradicts numerous aspects of the movie.

YouTube Preview Image

Listening to the Greenpeace activist you get the feeling that the entire global warming movement could be equated to some pseudo-religion with everything resting on “faith” and the doctrine of special interest groups.

What did the High Court of Justice find in the United Kingdom?

Read the rest of this entry »

United Nations Global Climate Treaty.. COPS

Posted by courage On October - 20 - 2009

Earth Outer Space

Here is the radio interview that Glenn Beck did yesterday with Lord Monckton on the United Nations COPS treaty.

From the interview, the purpose of the Treaty…

“… a vast transfer of wealth from the West to poorer countries, in the name of  what is called reparations for climate debt..”

What will be the cost to the United States?

“… up to 2% of the GDP every year to poorer countries..”

Listen to the interview:

YouTube Preview Image

I forgive Lord Monckton for misstating the Article of the Constitution which deals with ratification of Foreign Treaties.. it’s Article 5.

The interview continues…

YouTube Preview Image

John Holdren who Lord Monckton speaks about near the end of the clip is the advisor czar to President Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.

Do You Believe the Lies You’ve Been Told on GLOBAL WARMING?

Posted by courage On October - 17 - 2009

I started to present the pseudoscience surrounding climate change in this post:

Obama, Science and False Conclusions

While there may be some which still believe the fault based assumptions surrounding climate change, the TRUTH is that the science is being  skewed by researchers who have ulterior motives. In order for science to reach a minimal standard of validity it must be replicated through numerous studies, typically by independent researchers.

The problem in this debate is   an entire industry has developed which includes journalists, scientists and  governments; all which gain will gain monetarily from the climate change caravan.  Journalists have created careers in reporting  the catastrophic consequences of this pseudoscience.  Scientists who depend on  research grants to fund their studies, twist their research to support the assumption  academia champions.  And governments are looking to fuel coffers with tax dollars which can be made on the ponzi scam of  “environmental justice.”  The United Nations is intimately involved by way of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  On December 7-18, 2009 an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 delegates from around the world will descend on Copenhagen for the “Conference of the Parties,”  otherwise knows as COPS.  An interesting acronym since that is exactly what they will do during this conference.. attempting to police the world, especially those pesky developed countries such as the United States.  The theme for the conference is HOPE, I kid you not.  See here.

The “hope” for the United Nations delegates  is to bamboozle persuade industrial nations to sign a treaty which will institute extensive caps on C02 emissions, assist developing countries by way of money to develop their own “green” economies and  allow the United Nations control over any and all goverance and potential alterations of the treaty.  Now, this may not concern you.. you may think, “what’s the big deal?”  Watch this clip and tell me if doen’t make you a wee bit concerned…

YouTube Preview Image

Read the rest of this entry »