Hear It Online

Global Warming - A Closer Look

Interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy.

The U.S. government is very close to making this a reality. Very close. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.

Bill placing federal lands off-limits passes House

© 2009 McGraw-Hill, Inc. – The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a public lands bill that would lock up 2.2 million acres of federal lands, including 1.2 million acres in the gas-rich Wyoming Range, potentially blocking them from future oil and natural gas production.

The bill passed the Democratic-controlled chamber by a vote of 285-140. A similar Senate measure passed easily last week, 77-20, and now heads to President Obama’s desk for his signature.

The opposition to the measure came mostly from Republicans, who argued that it would impede energy production on public lands. Democrats argued that protecting the lands for future generations took precedence over energy development.

Among other things, the bill would place 1.2 million acres of the Wyoming Range off-limits to oil and natural gas producers. The US Geological Survey estimates the range’s reserves at 1.5 Tcf of gas and 5 million barrels of oil.

The bill, which is known as the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, is intended to protect moose, lynx, mule deer and other animals on the range, and would prohibit the future leasing of the area for oil and gas production. More than 700,000 acres currently under lease would not be affected by the bill.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America blasted the passage Wednesday, calling it “a step in the wrong direction for our economy and our future. This legislation makes it harder to responsibly develop oil and natural gas resources on federal lands, and limits a main driver of economic growth: American energy production,” said Barry Russell, president and CEO of IPAA.

The lands “are already effectively protected,” Russell said, citing the “state-of-the-art technology” producers use to minimize the environmental impacts of drilling. “As our economy continues to struggle, the last thing we need is a self-imposed, unnecessary obstacle to recovery,” he added.

The bill earlier this month failed to pass the House when leadership brought it to the floor under rules that prohibited any amendments and required a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The measure subsequently was renamed after an unrelated bill that had already been passed by the House.

The maneuver allowed passage of the bill with a simple majority and without amendments now that the Senate has approved it. —Daniel Goldstein

Good News - Colorado Democrats kill Oil and Gas Jobs during Recession.

Mar. 13—DENVER — The state House voted Thursday to increase gas and oil companies’ obligation to respect the environment and the concerns of property owners when they drill in Colorado.

Note: This could just as easily read ‘The state House voted Thursday to make it more expensive and difficult for oil companies to drill in Colorado, ensuring U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources.’ john@hearit.com

After one more, pro-forma vote, a bill enacting new rules drafted by the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission will go to the Senate, which is expected to approve it. The new rules are scheduled to go into effect on April 1.

Democrats who control the House swatted down Republican attempts to defeat, delay or diminish the bill, arguing that the health and safety of Coloradans who live in energy-producing areas should not be compromised.

Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, hammered on the assertion that the new rules would cost jobs in the state’s gas and oil fields. He said 12,000 jobs have been lost already in oil and gas.

“Why do we insist on trying to kill jobs in the middle of a recession?” he asked.

Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, claimed the rules would cost “tens of thousands of jobs.”

But it was Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, who boiled the Republican argument down to its core. “People or prairie dogs?” he demanded.

About 300 demonstrators rallied at the Capitol to reinforce the Republican claims.

“We’ve seen boom and bust in Colorado before,” Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, told the rally. “But the busts that have come before have largely been accidents of economic nature. They shouldn’t be foisted on us by an unlistening government who is willing to forget who we are and who they work for and put us out of our jobs.”

Democrats insisted that the job losses were “accidents of economic nature” — the recession-induced collapse of demand for gas and oil and other market factors that the state cannot control. They argued that drilling companies have mothballed many of their rigs not because of rules that aren’t even in effect yet, but because it’s not worth drilling now.

Democrats pointed to statistics showing that the decline in oil and gas drilling was happening throughout the West, new rules or no.

“Commodity prices are what is killing the oil and gas industry in Colorado,” said Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder.

Copyright © 2009, The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo.

Innovation Trumps Reason

A bold new approach to funding Climate Change was reported this morning on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition (02/04/2009) by Richard Harris, science reporter.

The spin word used was innovation, the innovator being interviewed being a Dr. Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University who is the Director of the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.

While there are those who might consider circumventing the will of the taxpayer to spend gobs of money to promote a politically unpopular faux scientific agenda as unethical Harris sees the situation differently, describing Dr. Sarewitz as ‘One person pushing for an intellectual paradigm shift . . .’

So that’s what they call it now.

The strategy Dr Sarewitz unveiled is this:

‘The idea really is to take the political heat off of climate change and instead move this into the realm of policy wonkdom,’ he says, ‘where many many small decisions made across many agencies, many types of policies, many domains, set the conditions for moving in the right direction without demanding that people accept that this is the most important problem in the world.’

As of late public support for spending big money on Climate Change appears to be a political no go. Dr Sarewitz answers the question of how to side step the public and just spend lots of money. Skip the whole inconvenience of asking for permission and just implement through policy, the issue is just too important for the unwashed masses to chime in.

You have to love innovation.

Climate change is essentially irreversible ;)

Sadly I visited Slashdot and followed a link to a NPR article concerning Climate Change (the crisis formally known as Global Warming). Yes, I knew better.

The last paragraph demonstrates a complete departure from logic, or an exercise in Torus Logic ™. Torus Logic ™ is a close relative of Circular Logic but comes even less close to reason.

The paragraph reads:

“I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.”

This agonizingly pitiful argument for spending billions and billions of dollars is attributed to one Dr. Susan Solomon who, predictably, has much to gain by claiming there is a problem and would be homeless if there were none.

Please note the caption of the tragic photo of Lake Mead’s horrifically low waterline, a waterline that is at “its lowest level since the 1960s.” What climate crisis did we earthlings avert in the 60’s? How did we avert the crisis in the 60’s without spending billions of dollars?

Knock these idiots out, they don’t deserve the mercy shown a rabid dog.