Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Roy Innis :: Townhall.com Columnist
Jim Crow Energy Policies
by Roy Innis
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The US civil rights revolution of the 1950s and ‘60s was one of the greatest social and political liberations in history. It gave African Americans and other minorities new opportunities and new levels of success in virtually every walk of life.

But today we face unprecedented new challenges to indispensable, but often neglected rights enunciated in our Declaration of Independence: “That all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

These fundamental rights are under assault in subtle, often insidious ways. Sometimes it is with the best of intentions, by good people who don’t realize they are impairing other people’s rights, hopes and dreams. At other times, it is by people who are willing, even determined, to sacrifice individual rights in the name of a proclaimed threat or greater common good.

One critical challenge involves restrictions on access to energy and economic opportunity – and thus on liberties and rights – in the name of protecting the environment.

Energy is the master resource of modern society. It transforms constitutionally protected civil rights into rights we actually enjoy: jobs, homes, transportation, healthcare, and other earmarks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

With abundant, reliable, affordable energy, much is possible. Without it, hope, opportunity, progress, job creation and civil rights are hobbled.

Laws and policies that restrict access to America’s abundant energy drive up the price of fuel and electricity. They cause widespread layoffs and leave workers and families struggling to survive, as the cost of everything they eat, drive, wear and do spirals higher. They roll back the progress for which civil rights revolutionaries like Dr. Martin Luther King struggled and died.

They create unnecessary obstacles to the natural, justifiable desire of minority Americans to share in the American Dream. They prevent us from resolving conflicts through compromise, and impose needless and unfair burdens on our poorest families.

These regressive, energy-killing laws and policies deny minority and other poor families a seat at the energy lunch counter, and send us to the back of the economic bus.

The Congress of Racial Equality and I care deeply about our environment. But we also care about having jobs, and affordable food, heat and transportation. We care about impoverished Third World families achieving their dreams.

We want to know that the environmental values we cherish really are threatened the way environmental activists say they are. That the solutions they advocate really will safeguard those values, at reasonable cost, without creating enormous new problems, like global grain shortages.

Today, unfortunately, these common-sense requests are under assault by activists who want to eliminate fossil fuels, base public policies on unfounded ecological scare stories, and stifle debate by attacking anyone who challenges their assertions.

Energy Reality must no longer be denied. Fully 85% of all the energy Americans use comes from fossil fuels. Add in nuclear and hydroelectric power, and we’ve reached 96%. Biomass (3%) is mostly waste from paper mills and sawmills.

A mere 0.8% is wind and solar power. These renewable sources are not alternatives to fossil fuel use. They are supplements. Just to provide electricity to meet New York City’s needs would require blanketing Connecticut with 300-foot-tall wind turbines that generate power just eight hours a day, on average. That is neither economically nor ecologically sustainable.

If we attempt to force a massive switch away from fossil fuels, we will create a Grand-Canyon-sized Energy Gap between what we need, and energy we actually have if its production is delayed, outlawed, restricted or priced out of reach.

Geologists say America’s onshore and offshore public lands could contain enough oil to run 60 million cars and heat 25 million homes for 60 years; enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years; enough coal, uranium and shale oil for centuries of power.

These energy resources belong to all Americans. They are not the private property of activists who insist they never be touched, or citizens who’ve been bamboozled into thinking they cannot be developed without destroying ecological values.

These energy takings force Americans to pay more for energy that is artificially scarce. Their economic progress is held back. They lose the jobs that energy development would create. They lose billions of dollars in royalties and taxes. Energy saved through painstaking conservation and alternative energy efforts is offset by declining US production, and America ends up importing still more foreign oil and sending more jobs overseas.

We could produce almost twenty billion gallons of gasoline annually by drilling safely and carefully in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – from an area one-twentieth the size of Washington, DC. We could get vast quantities of oil and natural gas from the Outer Continental Shelf.

But instead, politicians have locked this energy up and told us to rely on 7 billion gallons of ethanol, from corn grown on an area the size of Indiana. Food prices soar, and millions starve.

Climate change is real, and has been throughout Earth’s history. But there is a huge difference between acknowledging this – and claiming: our use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change; future changes will be catastrophic; slashing carbon dioxide emissions will stabilize our fickle climate; and we can slash emissions without impairing energy use, living standards, jobs and civil rights.

Over a dozen climate bills are pending in Congress. Hundreds more are pending at the state, county and city level. Unaccountable activists and judges say we must protect polar bears that unreliable computer models say might someday be endangered.

Every proposal requires major reductions in greenhouse gases – many of them by 80% below 2005 emissions, a level not seen in these United States since 1909! Every one would give activists, courts and bureaucrats control over virtually any activity that produces greenhouse gases, and every aspect of our lives. Every one would curtail energy use and economic opportunity.

Not one would make a serious dent in global CO2 levels or temperatures.

Whether the blunt instrument is a carbon tax, a carbon offsets tax, a cap-and-trade tax, a carbon sequestration mandate tax, or a bloated bureaucracy tax, the effect on prices would be the same – and already stressed families would get another dose of economic arsenic. We cannot let that happen.

In this election season, every thoughtful, caring citizen in our great nation must join me in challenging the modern-day Jim Crow laws that prevent poor people from having the energy they need to achieve Dr. King’s dream of civil rights, equal opportunity and true environmental justice.

Together, we can make that dream come true.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Roy Innis is national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of America’s oldest and most respected civil rights groups, and a life-long advocate of economic development rights for poor families and communities around the world.

News Articles On This Topic
 

The US population:

1. Comprises 5% of the world population; and

2. Consumes 25% of the world's oil.

We need to improve efficiency. Given that the remaining reserves of oil are limited, wouldn't it make sense to get our efficiency closer to that of other countries before using the remainder? (If it make sense to use it.)

"unfounded ecological scare stories"

Support by the National Academy of Sciences makes global warming "unfounded"? No amount of evidence will mollify skeptics.

Doesn't "pursuit of happiness" include those whose food supply has been diminished by GW-driven droughts?

Solar and wind energy are making great technological strides. Those of us with faith in America believe we can solve this problem.

Cam writes .
Come on tell us .... IS THIS REALLY AL GORE ?
Your thoughts are typical tree hugging Liberal .
You don't do away with 95 % of our Energy needs before you have a sure "Fix " !
You didn't address a word in a BLACK MAN'S THOUGHTS ON EXPENSIVE FOOD AND ENEGRY "NOW " SINCE WE EAT AND DRIVE NOW !

ReCon
Despite the TH mindset, this reasoning is not limited to one person.

"You don't do away with 95 % of our Energy needs before you have a sure "Fix " !"

It took $4/gal. gas to get people to sell their gas guzzlers. I wish more people could have seen it coming and improved their efficiency ealier. Like many things in life, no pain, no gain.

Do you think Americans are incapable of achieving the efficiency rates of other countries?

"You didn't address a word in a BLACK MAN'S THOUGHTS ON EXPENSIVE FOOD AND ENEGRY "NOW " SINCE WE EAT AND DRIVE NOW !"

Yes I did. Here it is again:

"Doesn't "pursuit of happiness" include those whose food supply has been diminished by GW-driven droughts?"

Getting our fuel consumption more in line with other countries would also reduce the need for biofuels.

Referendum
It is time for the people to vote on this issue. The time for a fanatic few to continue to block the solution of the problem must end.

Computer Models are Worthless
The IPCC admits their computer models are neither forecasts nor predictions but are scenarios.

Computer models are full of *what if's*, such as *what if* greenhouse gases are the primary force behind climate change, *what if* CO2 remains in the atmosphere for at least 100 years and *what if* increased CO2 causes a positive feedback through increased water vapor and *what if* there are no natural offsets, such as increased cloud cover?

Computer models likewise which claim to be able to model the climate for decades into the future cannot be verified for decades. None of these modelers recognized the recent cooling and none modeled how the ocean currents (responsible for our cold winter and cool, wet spring) affect climate.

To actually believe there's any scientific merit to this models if complete and utter fallacy. Science must be verifiable. Climate models may be able to someday accurately predict the climate for a few years out, but we're far from there today.

Computer Models are Worthless
The IPCC admits their computer models are neither forecasts nor predictions but are scenarios.

Computer models are full of *what if's*, such as *what if* greenhouse gases are the primary force behind climate change, *what if* CO2 remains in the atmosphere for at least 100 years and *what if* increased CO2 causes a positive feedback through increased water vapor and *what if* there are no natural offsets, such as increased cloud cover?

Computer models likewise which claim to be able to model the climate for decades into the future cannot be verified for decades. None of these modelers recognized the recent cooling and none modeled how the ocean currents (responsible for our cold winter and cool, wet spring) affect climate.

To actually believe there's any scientific merit to this models if complete and utter fallacy. Science must be verifiable. Climate models may be able to someday accurately predict the climate for a few years out, but we're far from there today.

Duplicate posts
I'm sorry about the duplicate posts. The newly redesigned Townhall isn't working very well. I submitted my post multiple times because it wasn't appearing in the comments.

CAM
I hope you are joking. Other parts of the world also have people living in caves, huts and small apartments. During the heat wave that hit Europe in 2003, more than 3000 people in the city of Paris died. Yes, they consume less energy than us but would we be willing to lose this many people because of the heat or cold? Do we want high unemployment, high energy prices and a lower standard of living? It is time for the rest of the world to join us, not the other way around.

too Cam
The US population:

1. Comprises 5% of the world population; and
Productivity is the reason for that since we supply 37 % of the worlds needs .

2. Consumes 25% of the world's oil. Again ::Duh ! mud Huts , Tents , no real Industry does that ! Meaning The Third World !!!

We need to improve efficiency. Given that the remaining reserves of oil are limited, wouldn't it make sense to get our efficiency closer to that of other countries before using the remainder? (If it make sense to use it.)

"unfounded ecological scare stories" --
Out Population since 1970 has doubled and will grow 421 Million by 2050 while we are stoping new oil , nukes , coal and natural gas drilling !

Support by the National Academy of Sciences makes global warming "unfounded"? No amount of evidence will mollify skeptics.

SKEPTICS ? The last 10 years have been cooler .The last 11 Aprils have been cooler .Now Global WARMING IS GONE .SO THE NEW TERM IS CLIMATE ''CHANGE " ? HELL THE GLOBE HAS CHANGED CLIMATES THOUSANDS OF TIMES ... FREEZING AND BURNING UP SINCE TIME BEGAN .

Doesn't "pursuit of happiness" include those whose food supply has been diminished by GW-driven droughts?

The left and tree huggers have voted against all forms of energy except fort Corn ands even the Left say that is beyond stupid .
THAT IS WHY THE PRICE IS UP NOT BUSH ,,SORRY LEFTY TREE HUGGER ! BUSH DOESN'T DECIDE ON DROUGHTS .....GOD DOES OR AL GORE .

Solar and wind energy are making great technological strides. Those of us with faith in America believe we can solve this problem.

You want live to see that day solar and wind or you haven't been born yet since much of the earth has snow, nights , Winters stays Cloudy and rains year round !!


Cam
You must be atypical of the Californians I encountered during my 30+ years there, or else things have changed in the Golden State.

Otherwise I would think it ironic that anyone from California, where people literally drive a block, turn up the heat when it's 60 degrees outside, and in short are the biggest energy wasters on the planet, can tell the rest of us that we need to become more energy efficient.

livefree
You imply that there's a correlation between quality of life and gasoline consumption. The two following rankings suggest otherwise:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy -oil-consumption-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_net-lifestyle-hap piness-net

People in countries with lower gas consumption are happier than US citizens. Having pleasant, pedestrian-friendly cities is likely a major reason. Thousands of us go on vacations to the places where they live.

ReCon - Yes, ice core samples show that the climate has changed numerous times before. Previous warming periods are associated with cyclical solar fluctuations that were exacerbated by CO2 generation. The current period is associated mostly with CO2 generation from the Industrial Revolution. As all of the graphs in the Inconvenient Truth show, temperature increases on jagged trend lines. A short-term decrease in temperature doesn't disprove anything GW opponents have claimed.

Bulldog - Actually, California is alone among states in keeping per capita energy consumption constant over decades.

We are self-destroying
On the same day that the Polar Bear is declared an (American) endangered species, Canada, which owns artic territory contains three-fourth of the bear population, refuses to follow suit and continues to allow full oil and gas development. Russia also announces that it is building more oil port and terminals up North to export more (Siberian-Artic) oil. While we are committing suicide in preventing our own oil industry to develop our oil reserves, other nations are going full speed in drilling offshore and onshore. Brazil recently made a huge offshore oil discovery, the Chinese are exploring non-stop in the South China seas after taking over with their navy and buying oil reserves wherever they can find them. India is building refineries to refine the oil that cannot be refined in the USA. Why American environmentalists continue to be fixated at their (green) navels and happily prevent American companies from exploring and developing new oilresources, putting at risk our national security, our economy and our welfare, the rest of the world is happily grabbing the oil, the jobs and the money. Of course the environmentalists will not stop until they make sure that there is no longer an (American) footprint on earth. But will they be able to prevent Chinese, Russian, Indian, etc..footprints from taking over?

We are self-destroying
On the same day that the Polar Bear is declared an (American) endangered species, Canada, which owns artic territory contains three-fourth of the bear population, refuses to follow suit and continues to allow full oil and gas development. Russia also announces that it is building more oil port and terminals up North to export more (Siberian-Artic) oil. While we are committing suicide in preventing our own oil industry to develop our oil reserves, other nations are going full speed in drilling offshore and onshore. Brazil recently made a huge offshore oil discovery, the Chinese are exploring non-stop in the South China seas after taking over with their navy and buying oil reserves wherever they can find them. India is building refineries to refine the oil that cannot be refined in the USA. Why American environmentalists continue to be fixated at their (green) navels and happily prevent American companies from exploring and developing new oilresources, putting at risk our national security, our economy and our welfare, the rest of the world is happily grabbing the oil, the jobs and the money. Of course the environmentalists will not stop until they make sure that there is no longer an (American) footprint on earth. But will they be able to prevent Chinese, Russian, Indian, etc..footprints from taking over?

Cam
I'll take you at your word on CA's per capita energy consumption, although it simply could mean that Californians were energy wasters then and are energy wasters now. Actually, I think the bigger concern for California is water, but that's a whole different subject.


Bulldog
Bay Area at least is experiencing Green-mania now. Virtually every page in the SF Chronicle has an ad for solar panels. Every major city has a rail sytem now.

Cam
I have always found comparing other countries to the US to be dubious at best. And some of those happy pedestrian friendly countries were created by using some rather environmentally destructive engineering. Think Amsterdam.

As for their smaller consumption of petrol, that follows. Their populations are condensed into much smaller areas, where rail systems and biking are far more practical than they are in the US. Can you imagine walking from Manhatten to Long Island daily?

From a geographic and population standpoint, it is quite understandable that Europe uses less gas than the US. And they probably always will.

Cam
Solar and wind power could never supply even half of this nations power needs. Not unless you covered every inch of empty space with windmills and solar panels. Their energy return is simply too small.

Nuclear power shows the best return. And the waste produced is a fraction of the waste produced in fosil fuel energy. As for safety, nuclear power has it all over oil and coal. Every few months you hear about a refinery explosion or a leaking oil tanker. When was the last time you heard about a nuclear power plant disaster? Chernoble in the 80s? And before that it was the far more minor Three Mile Island incident in the 70s. And yes we have the technology right now, to safely store spent fuel rods for centuries. Frankly, nuclear is by all practical thinking, the way to go.

Cam
Just to clarify, Amsterdam is a city in the Netherlands....I did not want you to think I thought it was a country...my post made it look that way.

For JeffreyP (#7)
New TH format is a mixed blessing.

Good news: easy to find post to which one is responding (and referring to post # rather than date/time)

Bad news: the format is hard to read, and can give migraines to readers.

Mr Innis, you write:
These regressive, energy-killing laws and policies deny minority and other poor families a seat at the energy lunch counter, and send us to the back of the economic bus.
--------

Deny minorities?
This is what I am sick of seeing.
When you "minorities" wake up and realize these policies have the same impact on me, and ALL of us, and join in as an American, instead of thinking it is about "minorities", be may gain enough power to liberate all of us together from the JIM Crow Laws in every issue today.

Congress and States have become the CROWS Nest for their creation and they affect ALL of us, not just you and the "minorities".
How about thinking outside your skin tone?

You did on the last line, so lets stick to this thought so we can work together, regardless o f our skin color.

"Together, we can make that dream come true."

Yes, as Americans, not as special interest groups, the real dream MLK spoke of.

Energy policy
i.e. global warming is merely leftover Marxist blather that didn't work in the USSR and ruined Cuba but is deemed necessary by the left in order to implement more socialism and tell people when they can buy gas or heat their homes or take a vacation, prob. not.

Enregy restriction will create long-long term world recession-depression. No energy, no progress. Period. No blogging on TH. No electricity. No computer.

The world's climate is variable. The entire solar system is warming. Google it.

The earth was warmer from the time of ancient Egypt throughj Chaucer. It was colder from Shakespeare to Hemingway. Warmer is prob. better. Less heating oil needs, longer growing seasons to help world food problems ascerbated by idiots turning all the corn crop into gas and more land available for recreation and relexation, for peoples not entirely cowed by enviro whackos and their plans to depopulate the earth in favor of cockroaches and rabbits.

Global warming is caused by
the sun.
The entire solar system has been warming for c. 150 earth years. Google it.
If you want to save the world more, turn off your computer, turn off the lights, turn off the heat or AC, don't drive, empty the swimming pool, throw out the credit cards, walk everywhere, gotop bed at sunset and get up at dawn, turn your lawn into a garden, never fly anywhere, or don't complain to me.

bob
You're right; the high per capita gas consumption in the US is largely due to urban sprawl. Our environment and health would improve by reversing that. Folks on Long Island have the LIRR.

I've read that wind farms in the Dakotas could produce a large share of US power consumption. My home gets 2/3 of its electrical demand from photovoltaics. Again, don't underestimate America's abilities.

Nukes would be fine if we could ensure terrorists don't get a hold of spent fuel travelling to dumps. We also need to find the waste sites. Are you volunteering Pennsylvania?

Get real
Fossil fuel is BY FAR the cheapest way to produce energy, followed by nuclear. We insist on alternative energy sources and the author of this commentary correctly pointed out that these aren't sources but supplements. People are crying now to pay 4 bucks per gallon for gasoline in the US while others are crying due to lack of food - a result of putting food in gas tanks instead of in the supermarket.
Do you think that the populace won't be more up in arms when they have to pay substantially more for other forms of energy? I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep on with research and development of alternative fuels, but we have to put things in perspective. We have a window of opportunity that we can use now in developign new sources, using our own resources in the meantime.

We've tried conservation
Oil consumption per capita in the US declined by 6.1% from 1987 to 2007. This information is readily available at the Census Bureau and Energy Information Administration.

US oil consumption increased 17.9%, from 4.69 to 5.53 billion barrels. US population increased 25.6%, from 240.1 to 301.6 million.

At the same time, domestic production declined 38.8%, from 3.04 to 1.86 billion barrels.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't work on more conservation. In fact, that will take care of itself with higher prices. But we've pursued an unwise, one-sided policy, and the fault lies with the Democrats, who have blocked access to enormous domestic oil reserves.

gov
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/2008051517243 7.aspx

"Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 to $5 a Gallon
Inhofe, Sessions blast massive costs of global warming legislation. "


The consequencse are obvious and they go it anyway. Why?

Things are going to get much, much worse.

How does this sound...

"High on his agenda is business related to the $7.8 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project. With construction expected to begin in 2009, the "Peace Pipeline" will ultimately supply the Asian nations with 150 million cubic meters of Iranian gas daily, a significant contribution towards the growing demand in the region.

Despite vocal opposition to the project from the United States, Ahmadinejad is being warmly embraced by officials in both Islamabad and New Dehli. Tonight, he will attend a " private dinner ," reserved for the most special foreign guests, hosted by Indian PM Manmohan Singh. "It is an important gesture that shows India attaches great importance to developing relations with Iran," according to official sources."

How about this....

" The purchase coincided with a visit to Caracas by the Chinese to discuss the construction of an oil refinery in China to process Venezuelan oil. The meeting was held within days of a cultural confab between Iran and China in Tehran."


A perfect storm is brewing and when it hits the fan we are going to be told the answer is the North American Union. Don't act surprised.






*Gas Guzzlers*
Those who sneer at my Ferrari Dino as a *Gas Guzzler* are *GUZZLING* $20/gallon Starbucks Triple Grandissimo Lattes and $15/gallon Evian in plastic bottles they now carry even into the church pew--and throwing the cups and bottles on the floor of the subway and into the street and half-full on the office steps, by the way, thinking they have vanished when they have left their personal hands.

Those who howl about how *efficient* the Europeans are in not having air conditioning are the same ones with their own house at 65 degrees *for the children* or even *for the dogs* -- they only believe OTHER PEOPLE should go without air conditioning. And incidentally, have you noticed that the ones crying the most loudly for sacrifice are wearing $200 running shoes?

The day I can walk past the site of a Rally for The Environment (such as Earth Hour) and not see ten blocks ankle-deep in garbage, trash, and litter as the Sandalistas walk to the parking lots to drive back to their McMansions in Daddys SUV, that is the day I will stop what I am doing and pay attention to anything at all that they have to say.

Cam
Hmmm, sorry but you are never going to get me to believe in your trash. I was just reading an article over at LewRockwell.com. by Bill Anderson on energy. I would suggest go read it.

And the US is going to need lots of energy in future years starting now, unless of course you want us to go back to the 1880,s? How are we to heat our homes or power our cars? Oh that is right you don,t want us to drive around. How then am i to go to work since i drive to houses to do electrical work. OH i see may be the owner can move his house to where i live.

Cam
People such as yourself are a direct threat to the welfare of my Grandchidren and their Grandchildren. I am an engineer by trade and your halffast melodramatic, halffast half truths don't get past the physics, chemistry, math test that engineers use to figure out the difference between fact and fiction. Your American Academy of Sciences is filled to the brim with egg-head theorists that would starve to death if they had to make a living actually designing, building and starting up real industrial plants. And California is a real leader alright - last time I was there, LA is still that town under all the ugly smog and pollution.

Americans are slowly but surely wising up to BS artists such as yourself. Reality is biting Americans in the kiester and soon the demands of reality will eliminate most of this unrealistic, useless "green-freak" stupidity. Reasonable care for our ecology is a reasonable thing to strive for; the idiocy of todays policies is no longer acceptable in the real world. Brace yourself guy - the changes are coming and all you can do is whine and snivel. Please do it quietly.

Dwain Cleveland

Talent Scout
To Talent Scout, you point is well taken, but it is slightly off topic. Mr. Enis was just making a comparison to Jim Crow laws to the current econ enviorment restrictions. It is true that minorities and the poor are impacted by Gov't intervention in the Energy market. Pointing out that fact does not make it a racial issue, it just is recognizing that fact. I would say that it is a stretch comparison(Jim Crow vs. current Energy Policies). I think Mr. Enis would agree with you also in your point that it impacts ALL Americans.

To Cam
Man Made Global Warming is a crock of Bull Stuff. It is an invalid argument because of the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. It is also not valid because the Scientific Method has not be proven Man-Made Global Warming to be true. A concensus is not part of the steps in the Scientific Method. You can choose to believe it, but don't force the citizens to pay for something that has not been proven by the Scientific Method.

Group Think - Nation Academy Of Sciences
I tried to post this article but it far exceeded the 2000 word limit. The following link will take you to a 1975 Newsweek Article warning of "Global Cooling" I find it interesting that the National Academy of Sciences has performed such a turnaround.
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

I think it is time we start talking "Class Action Lawsuit". Lets see Al Gore and the National Academy of Sciences prove their "Global Warming Theories". After the Civil Action, maybe we should look at Criminal Action for all the deaths this foolishness has caused.

The National Academy of Sciences
can prove the earth temp. is warming, cooling, or static. They can't prove human activity is causing it -- ony bureaucrats and politicians can "prove" that.

Energy Policy
The environmentalist wackos do not give a rats a-- about the polar bears. This is just a ploy to stifle Americas' energy independence. Their goal is to return the earth to its primitive state and have us off it.

Windmills
Before people start fantazing about windmills in the Dakotas producing the Nation's electricity, you should research "line losses" on transmitting current over long distances. Power plants don't "crank down" their production because everybody has a cfl bulb. People should study how power plants and electric xmission work, before they start coming up with hairbrain solutions.

The Aqua satellite system disproved the pillar of GW, but nobody wants the people to know about it. CO2 does not lead to high (heat trapping) cloud formation by forcing. It was the opposite, low cooling clouds. There were NO "hotspots" over the tropics as predicted by the models. It was reported by The Australian but nary a word in the U.S. press.

You gotta be pretty agenda-driven or just plain stupid not to realize the scam. Every single environmental disaster predicted by "alarmists" has one thing in common......they NEVER happened!

gofer
The Aqua satellite system proved that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, overturning 150 years of expertimentation and observation? Impressive.

Colossal Failure to Inform the Public
Our newspapers have failed to inform the public about the vast oil resources on land in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. This is one reason it has been feasible to suppress action.

Just a few more years and the poor among us will be freezing to death because of inaction due to the well-meaning ignorant among us, who have frightened our legislators into inaction.

Demand action, folks, or we will be burying the frozen dead in huge numbers.

Nuthead

Colossal Failure to Inform the Public
It won’t be years. This winter it will cost homeowners over $1,000.00 to fill an average size oil tank. Many will have to choose between heat and food.

delsys

National Academy of Sciences
The National Academy of Sciences has nuclear power first on its list of alternative fuels. Politicians and eco-fanatics never quote that part.

delsys
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.