03/26/08
My response regarding forwarded email I received a couple weeks ago: "THE PRICE OF GASOLINE please read and take note" [appearing below]
USA's Energy Information Administration and Dept of Energy
[1] Let it first be understood the USA's Energy Information Administration and Dept of Energy estimated cost percentage breakdown that is based on 2005, $2.27 average retail price per gallon of gasoline: 12% is for "distribution and marketing"; 19% is for "refining costs and profits"; 19% is for "federal and state taxes"; and 53% is for the cost of "crude oil" itself. source [Click on "source" hyperlinks throughout what I've written herein to bring you to at least one of many websites upon which I have relied regarding the respective claim.] [The substance in the email appearing below which most likely falsely credits "Phillip Hollsworth" as its source, first started circulating apparently sometime in the year 2002. source.]
Greatest Chance to have Crude Oil Prices Drop
[2] "Oil is a global commodity. Its price is set globally, not locally. Oil buyers are always seeking the lowest-cost supplier. So any Saudi crude being loaded at the Red Sea port of Yanbu that doesn't get purchased by a refinery in Corpus Christi or Houston will instead wind up in Singapore or Shanghai." Robert Bryce, Washington Post.
[3] Unlike what that forementioned broadcast/circulating email that most all of us received urges, perhaps the greatest chance we have to make the oil producers in the Middle East, as well as those in other parts of the world, want to drop their crude oil prices [approx.. 53% of the cost of an average gal. of gas is due to the cost of crude oil], perhaps dramatically, and keep them relatively lower is for them and the other places to become worried about competition and react to that worry. The competition being that one of their greatest consumers of crude oil would start providing much more for itself; this is to say, that the USA would finally start much more drilling for more of its own crude oil resources in 2,000 acres [size of a big farm or less than a major city airport source] in ANWR [an area the size of the state of South Carolina within Alaska], the lower contiguous 48 states, and off the East and West coasts as well as in the Gulf of Mexico. And not just for its, that is to say the USA's own, consumption, but for competitive sale all over the world. In other words, they may think that if they were to substantially increase the supply, in turn lowering the demand which historically lowers the price, all in all would then make increased drilling on the part of the USA, or more specifically, what it as a government allows oil companies under its jurisdiction to drill, much less attractive and lucrative and perhaps not worth it, at least for now. At this point though, I should issue a warning regarding the time period in which it may take for this to happen: "Don't hold your breath."
"Anti-Human" Agenda
[4] Mainstream [and mostly liberal; liberal over conservative Pew Poll shows at about "4 to 1" source] media are basically "in bed" with so-called "environmentalists." We all need and want clean air and clean water, right? With the new environmentalists, the operative term in that last statement is "we." If "we" aren't humans, then these new so-called environmentalists are all for it. If however, it's for the benefit and longevity of mankind, it's totally another story. One must realize that these new so-called environmentalists push an "anti-human" agenda. 1source 2source 3source
[5] "The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization [and moreover, demolishing civilization that, among other things, is fueled primarily by oil and other so-called fossil fuels]. Environmentalism's goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion." Earth Day's Anti-Human Agenda by Michael Berliner [Dr. Berliner is a member of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA.]
[6] There would be hardly any better places to start noting such agenda-driven spikings or omissions than trying on the Internet to find major mainstream news media articles or archived broadcasts that revealed how our home-grown and Canadian environmentalism/anti-human organizations such as Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and Greenpeace, and our politicians who pander to them, have artificially and needlessly driven up sky-high, the price of energy; whether for fueling the American economy as a whole, or simply heating our homes or driving our cars, or most recently, how this has artificially and needlessly driven up our food prices.
[7] However, comparatively speaking, finding these media spikes or omissions with respect to financial ills and resulting lowered standards of living caused by environmentalism would be paled when realizing how effectively liberal-biased mainstream media had, in one manner or another, either spun greatly or covered up where: "Environmentalism has killed tens of millions of people, if not hundreds of millions, and could soon kill many more. Environmentalists' jihad against DDT sentenced millions to death from malaria in the Third World, their opposition to dams destroyed New Orleans, and their abasement of auto safety has mangled and killed tens of thousands. Even the World Trade Center towers destroyed on 9/11 would have remained standing far longer, enabling more people to escape, if it were not for an environmentalist scare about the most efficient fire retardant known to man for millennia." - Environmentalists Push Anti-Human Agenda by Joseph A. D'Agistino
[8] Moreover, what Joseph A. D'Agistino didn't also point out in his article is that both Space shuttles, Challenger and Columbia, exploded killing all astronauts in both crews, not to mention wasting billions of tax dollars, due in each instance to NASA buckling under environmentalists' pressures and then, in each respective case:
- Challenger - replacing "O" rings made from a substance that had been used safely and effectively for a long time that contained asbestos, with a "environmentally friendly" and more "politically correct" substitute of lesser quality, and with
- Columbia - replacing "foam," again made of a material that in several previous missions had worked well but contained Freon, with another "environmentally friendly" and more "politically correct" substitute of lesser quality. source
[9] Incidentally, I am not saying that there was no mention of it anywhere in that I myself had heard about it at different times somewhere or another some time ago, but do any of you recall seeing in newspaper headlines or as lead network news stories that the primary cause of either of these highly publicized, international news stories of our shuttle disasters were the result of invironmentalists' pressures on NASA where it succumbed to the pressure and then chose to use inferior, but "environmentally friendly" materials in parts to replace well-tested, safe and effective materials in the otherwise same parts used previously in successful past missions? It's my guess that you didn't. Mainstream media has a way of overlooking such facts in relaying what they decide is newsworthy - at least as to what goes anywhere near the front page or headlines the nightly news.
[10] The next time you're at a fair or should one way or another come across a booth for the Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Greenpeace or similar organization and one of their representatives asks you if having "clean air and clean water" for you and your family is important to you, then asks if you want to join or contribute to "the cause," you may want to reconsider. If you did end up joining or contributing, not only would you then be contributing to a fund to drive up the cost of a gallon of gas, energy in general, the price of food, and the overall cost of living, but you'd also be contributing to "an ideology that, if followed to its logical consequences, will eliminate humans from the face of the earth." source
Eliminate Need to Import Saudi Oil for 20 to 30 Years!
[11] Estimates in ANWR suggest strongly that there's enough oil just up there alone [where it's night, or next to it, for 146 days a year and the treeless, desolate ground is permanently frozen (a.k.a.: tundra)], if it were used for just American consumption, could offset or eliminate any need of importing any oil from Saudi Arabia for 20 to 30 years! source [Of course, this may not sound like a good idea if you are one of the lucky few 750 people a year (source) who visit ANWR for recreation and are fearful that you may actually get a blinding glimps of those 2,000 acres in the vast 19 million acres of ANWR - wouldn't that be downright awful!] And, moreover, that oil estimate is just a tiny percentage of all the billions of the forementioned estimated untapped barrels of oil the USA has in the ground in the lower 48 and off its coasts, not to mention the gigantic amounts of crude oil in shale in Canada.
[12] Recently, it was estimated that when considering the newly discovered oil thus far, there's enough of it to last another 500 years at current consumption rates. [This is aside from the possibility that the "abiotic theory" 1source 2source 3source is true and that oil is from inorganic, nonliving source(s) and produced from the Earth itself, thereby inexhaustible; as opposed to fossil fuel theory, which credits crude oil origin from organic, prehistoric, once living plants and animals; and thereby exhaustible and finite.] "Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone contain 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. Worldwide, the oil-shale reserves could be as large as 14 trillion barrels — more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates." 1source 2source Bottom line is that facts contradict the harbingers of doom; "estimates of the world's oil reserves have risen faster than production." source
Extracting Oil From Shale
[13] Initially, it was around $50 a barrel, but now estimates range from $10 to $40 for how much it costs to extract a barrel of oil out of the ground from shale. 1source 2source It is estimated that it takes 1 unit of energy to produce 3.5 units of energy from shale. source A drawback is that, at least for some producers, it takes approximately 3 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of oil from shale. source However, there are some new processes that use no water at all to extract oil from shale, in fact, the manner in which they extract the oil actually produces water. source In either case, it is still far under the amount of water it takes to produce a gallon of corn ethanol [which has far less Btu's per gallon than oil [about 2/3rds], that is to say, unreleased energy]. Estimates range from 4 gallons to 15 gallons as to the amount of water it takes to produce 1 gallon of corn ethanol. source
Corn Ethanol; a "renewable resource?
[14] [Remember: Corn ethanol will raise no concern, much less worry, for oil producers in the Middle East as any real form of competition, even if the high quantity of water usage is somehow drastically cut. It's simply not the answer for numerous reasons; here's a few: Hypothetically, if the government made a law that corn ethanol producers were only allowed to use corn ethanol as a fuel to produce corn ethanol, from the beginning farm tractors in the fields to ultimately the transport of it to your local filing station, it would require approximately 129 or more gallons of corn ethanol fuel energy to produce and bring 100 gallons of corn ethanol to your local gas pumps. source In other words, if it were not for taxpayer subsidies awarded ethanol producers that are paid from, among other things, gas excise taxes we pay at the pumps, corn ethanol producers would very quickly go out of business. (Unlike gasoline, without tax dollar subsidies, ethanol production is in no way profitable.) In turn, corn would go back to being utilized primarily for food once again. Food prices would drop, and cross-the-board mileage would increase for all vehicles running on gasoline (cars get better mileage on 100% gasoline than with any percentage of diluted mix of corn or other ethanol in it). And if we weren't charged anymore for that portion of our gas taxes that were going to ethanol subsidies, our cost per gallon of gas would also drop. Lower price, better mileage, greater efficiency, gosh what a concept!
[15] Comparing apples to apples, same to same, is the easiest way to see comparisons. In this instance, I will use British thermal units, Btu's. (A Btu is identically the same unit of measurement regardless the source of origination.) So, for those of you who are curious, the amount of Btu's energy, whether of fossil or bio, it takes to produce 100 Btu's that can be released by gasoline pumped from our local gas station is about 20 units This is the average amount of Btu energy used for drilling, pumping, refining, transporting, etc to take every 100 Btu's out of the ground and provide them at our local gas pumps. Now compare that to the amount of Btu's used for energy to power tractors in field for tilling, planting, harvesting, then for trucking, heat generation at ethanol plant and further transporting, etc that it would take to grow a potential 100 Btu's of corn ethanol out in a corn field and ultimately make it available at the gas pumps. The average right now is about 129 Btu's to produce 100 Btu's of corn ethanol!
[16] You might be thinking to yourself, "that can't be right, is it?" Answer, "yes it is!" [source] As I mentioned earlier, now imagine that in the name and promotion of so-called "RENEWABLE RESOURCES" our politicians wanted to become "purists" and were to legislatively mandate that all Btu's used in the growing, harvesting, transporting, and production of anything to do with making corn ethanol available to us at our local gas pumps had to have been originated, not from that "nasty" fossil fuel, but rather from supposedly clean renewable corn. How long do you think they'd keep calling it a "renewable" resource? Moreover, how much do you think it'd cost if produced this "purist" way and it wasn't subsidized?
[17] The faster all of America tried to convert all its land to exclusively grow corn for the production of ethanol, the faster exponentially all of America would completely run out of this "renewable" resource - that is, of course, if we didn't all die of starvation first. It's fairly safe to say that most of our elected representatives and officials who have studied benefits/detriments of corn ethanol as a fuel already know this. (They're not idiots, they just think we are.) They also know that in order for it to be continually produced so that it can be available as E85 or blended with our gasoline, our tax dollars, and including excise gas tax, will have to forevermore keep subsidizing it's production. The truth of the matter is that legislative promotion of corn ethanol does nothing positive for the environment, does nothing towards easing the drain on our pocket books (rather, it increases the drain), and does nothing for relieving dependence on foreign oil; rather, it amounts to nothing more than political pandering and keeping a few special interest groups happy. The next time I am told by some politician anything different, my response may well be in the words of Outlaw Jose Wales, "don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'."
MANKIND-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
[18] "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets." - Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology
[19] "... [W]e're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less. I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves. " - Richard S Lindzen, MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science
[20] " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously [Strictly attentive to minute details of form in action or conduct] observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. " - Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service
Feel "Warm and Fuzzy" All Over
[21] But wait! Such makes way too much sense. Unscientific, lemming-like "political correctness" and political pandering trumps common sense and science these days of our daily lives - at least wherever government has anything to do with them. We Americans must now all hold hands together under the roof of the church of global warming in this new religion of political environmentalism. Despite the absence of any scientific proof, all must nonetheless have arrogant "faith" that mankind, even though it "created" neither the heavens nor earth, is at this very moment destroying Earth but can diametrically change direction and "save" this approximately 4 billion year old planet nevertheless! Amen! (And good grief!)
[22] We must understand that many of our politicians are acting not for us nor our personal liberties and freedom to choose what we want for ourselves, but rather for the "common good." source It should be obvious by now. The majority of our so-called leadership in our state capitol and in Washington DC think that we don't know what's best for ourselves and shouldn't be able to make such decisions concerning our own lives and those of our families'. Rather, our state and federal nanny-state governments know best. And, in order to further that "common good" endeavor, many of these forementioned "leaders" must be re-elected or elected, whether on a local scale or national. They need votes and lots of 'em. So of course they want to get as many farmers' and corn ethanol producers' votes they can, and in so doing, kill two birds with one stone and also appear to be on the latest popular political bandwagon to "save the world."
[23] The aforementioned, of course, is regardless of the fact that such will artificially increase our need to consume even more fossil fuel for the production of ethanol [which of course, increases demand that in turn drives up the price even higher] than would otherwise be necessary; moreover, release needlessly even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (as if that were really a problem). But hey, who cares about results, its only intentions that matter, right? Who cares if the cost of food doubles, triples, or more and the price to pay for fuel to get to the store to buy the food doubles, triples, or more, or the cost to drive to work or perform our work to pay for that food [clothing and shelter, for that matter] doubles, triples, or more and our standards of living plummet by the same multiples as well? It doesn't matter. We all can "feel good" that we are all in lemming-like lock-step march to "save the planet." Gosh, doesn't just the thought make you feel happy, warm and fuzzy all-over? (*smile* Curious, I wonder if lemmings feel "fuzzy?")
Al Gore Conveniently Goofed-Up
[24] But oh that's right, even if hypothetically not just Minnesota, but all the states and countries of the entire world and including China and India got on the Keyoto protocol save-the-world bandwagon and held strict adherence, it's estimated that it would prevent a rise of as many as three (3) molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of atmosphere (preventing the rise from 34 to 37 CO2 molecules per 100,000 total atmospheric molecules) over the next 50 to 100 years, but whether it was just 3 or 30, it wouldn't really matter. source It seems Al Gore had conveniently goofed up on that part (along with about 8 other key scientific errors as adjudged by an English high court 1source 2source) in his film. Science has proven that first comes an increase of global heat which is then, if any correlation can be reasonably drawn at all, followed by the release of more CO2 into the atmosphere, not the other way around as Gore's film had us supposedly believing. source But hey, no matter, so what if there's a few loose ends, it's great sales gimmick, especially if you just happen to be in the multi-million dollar business of buying, selling or promoting exchange of carbon credits or carbon offsets as is Al Gore source - particularly, if you have all of mainstream media covering up your theoretical inadequacies. No one can say Al Gore doesn't know what's "convenient!" (For that matter, just ask Al if you don't believe me when I say It sure helps when mainstream media's agenda are identical or nearly the same as your own.)
Recent Global "Cooling" Warning from Russia
[25] To support what I am saying about the mainstream media bias that have apparently the same or similar agenda of that of Al Gore's: Russian scientist Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences' astronomical observatory, issuance of a "global cooling warning" over 2 1/2 years ago. He said, among other things, "On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth's climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate's global warming at the start of the 22nd century." He went on to say, "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol." Despite the recent Russian scientist's future warning now well on its way to becoming realized along with it now being supported by our latest satellite data and other data streams coming in all indicating essentially that the globe has been going through a major cooling trend over the past 12 months 1source 2source, coupled with news stories such as "First snow for 100 years falls on Baghdad" and numerous others about new record low temperatures set and vast snow covers, the likes of which haven't been seen since 1966; a Google search for "global cooling warning" today turned up only 279 hits. On the other hand, a Google search for "global warming warning" turned up 18,500 hits. Hmmmm, a little lopsided, wouldn't you say? It seems that if a news story doesn't fit within an agenda driven mainstream media and is too difficult to spin, it is suppressed or goes unreported entirely.
Greenhouse Gases Never Proven as Ever
Causing Global Warmings/Coolings Past or Present
[26] Greenhouse gases make up approximately only 1% [source] of all gases in Earth's atmosphere. As much as 95% or perhaps even 99.999% of that 1% is made up of water vapor. source (In terms of all of the Earth's atmosphere this percentage varies considerably and is impossible to measure accurately.) In that water vapor is considered as one of the greenhouse gases, it is reasonable to hypothosise that water vapor may be responsible for as much as 95% or perhaps even 99.999% of the "greenhouse gas effect" on Earth over the past 100s of millions of years. source
[27] Despite all the disengenuous reporting of conjecture, theories, and other fancy-sounding guesses as being hard evidence and proof to the point of declaring the "debate is over," 1source 2source there is no actual proof whatsoever that greenhouse gases, much less the tiny percentage of that 1% of Earth's total atmosphere that's made up of carbon dioxide (about 0.0360% of Earth's total atmosphere), which of course among other things when water vapor is present, is essential in producing:
- 1) clouds that reflect immeasurable radiant heat from the sun which in turns cools the Earth below;
- 2) rain, which again has an immeasurable cooling effect on the Earth below; and in all instance when combined with other external factors is way too
- 3) vast; as well as way too
- 4) dynamic to predict accurately with even the newest computer models source) of all those so-called greenhouse gases that in their entirety, to reiterate, make up only about 1% of the total atmospheric gases),
were ever the origin, source, cause or primary reason or major factor for any previous known global temperature spikes, that is to say warmings/coolings, or climate changes Earth has undergone (600 warmings/coolings-climate changes in just in the last million years alone source).
|
|
[28] This not to say that greenhouse gases don't play a major role in regulating climate. Scientists guess that without the forementioned greenhouse gases ["guess" because the percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere varies tremendously (given the air temperature, the locale and region on Earth, ocean currents, weather systems, time of day, time of year, altitude, and other conditions, estimates range from 0 to 4%) and is way too dynamic to make any reasonable guesses wherefrom such could be assigned predictable values and therefrom used as component along with other factors in arriving at a reasonably accurate calculation (so what the heck, water vapor is way too complicated and unpredictable a variable for even super computers [and needless to say, so-called, global warming/climate change computer models], so they just leave it out and hope we don't notice!)], "the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem." source
[29] It's one thing to say that so-called greenhouse gases, such as Nitrous Oxide, Methane, Fluorocarbons, Carbon Dioxide, and Water Vapor together have a "greenhouse effect" on the temperature of the Earth's surface temperatures, particularly with their characteristic to allow radiant energy from the Sun to pass through them down to Earth and after some that isn't absorbed as heat energy is reflected back upward, they reflect some of the infrared radiation again back towards Earth thus causing more temperature increase at the surface of the Earth. source
[30] However, it is totally another thing to expect anyone to believe without somehow providing proof that these gases outside of perfectly controlled, test tube environments where these qualities have been scientifically tested, can nonetheless be predictable, with reasonable certainty, to cause by themselves on their own with the exception of adding a few, or even quite few more molecules (yet miniscule in comparison) per 100,000 of air molecules, Earth's climates to change or overall global warming 50 years in advance. This is despite the fact that they'd be affected by immeasurable and constantly varying externalities of nature, that would include, but not be limited to, immeasurable, incalculable, unpredictable, related, interrelated, and unrelated dynamic forces of nature, that could include, but not be limited to, even aside from the enormity of the Earth's atmosphere itself, Sun cycles*, Sun spots, super novas, intermittent wobbles of Earth rotation on its axis, elliptical orbit distances around the Sun, Earth magnetism source, Earth magnetic pole reversals source, ocean currents, varying cloud cover and varying snow cover (both characteristically reflecting vast amounts of radiant (heat) energy, ice sheets, glaciers, rain, wind, storms, hurricanes, typhoons, waves, forestation, fire, meteorites, and volcanic activity on land and undersea. Lots and lots and lots and lots of guessing. Nonetheless, the mankind-caused global warming fearmongers expect us to "believe" in them. You betcha! (good grief!!)
Maunder Minimum
[31] (* The next Solar cycle looks very weak 1source 2source 3source, some scientist think we may be in for a recurrence of the Maunder Minimum. When that last occurred, it was during the mini ice age. "The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters." 1source) However, despite the forementioned absence of any such proof that either mankind or greenhouse gases (whether or not mankind contributed to them) could now or have ever in the past either alone or together caused the Earth's atmosphere to warm, cool or change climates over different areas of the globe: don't think for a moment that any of this latest stupid, careless, wrongful, deceitful and/or devious hoax will go away anytime soon. Unlike previous and numerous global warming/cooling crisis scares in our nation's history, this latest one has enormous amounts of money involved that will perpetuate it. Not just billions, but trillions of dollars may be spent in the name of it before all is said and done - which of course may not be until the last global warming scaremonger holdouts have frozen to death in their respective igloos while still clutching on the moneys from their last global warming research grants.
[32] "When you want less of something, fine it or tax it, when you want more of something, subsidize it." This axiom is certainly self-evident when one factors in the area of study for which state, federal and foreign governments, not to mention foreign and domestic corporations, of late have been offering research moneys/grants with respect to where, earlier, I compared hits for two different Google searches, namely, "global warming warning" -18,500 hits and "global cooling warning" - 279 hits. I think it's a safe bet that these governments and corporations are not offering moneys for research concerning any form of global "cooling" threat. Now understand, what I am talking about here is not just the billions of dollars of research grant money. Enormous amounts of money, yes; but this grant money doesn't include the billions of dollars that is already underway in exchange for "carbon credits or offsets." I'm sure, however, that many liberal elitists source [Marxists source] are pleased that these billions in grant money are going to mostly liberal institutions. It's a "nice fit": large amounts of money going to liberals works well in the bigger scheme of things, that is to say, keeping money in the hands of "useful idiots" more often than not works well for their puppeteers.
[33] Carbon credits and how they can be used to control energy, foreign and domestic, is the real story. Control of worldwide energy is the big picture. This is a major item in the hidden "agenda." This is a critical part of their true goal behind the global warming hoax perpetrated by our American socialists, the "blame America first" crowd, the one-in-the-same who want the UN to have control over the USA and all it's citizens. The liberal "elite," whether Democrat or Rino (Republican in name only) who want so very much to take from wealth of other Americans and distribute that ill-gotten money to whomever they alone deem worthy, whether here or in other countries. In today's world, whomever controls energy are the ones in real power. This mankind-caused global warming hoax is merely the vehicle that can finally bring this plan of ultimate control to fruition. History has taught us that power over others has been a very strong motivator over the past thousands of years. Those of us who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, as the saying goes.
[34] However, to achieve that ultimate power, many lesser forms of power must be exerted along the way. Finally, perpetuating a mankind-caused global warming hoax seems, so far anyway, to be just the thing that may work where all other things thus far have failed. Here's are big parts of the plan which is obviously well under way. Play down the fact that life as we know it on this planet would not exist if it were not for carbon dioxide. Have our teachers in government (public) schools indoctrinate their students with political agenda over true science. Mandate that Al Gore's conveniently untruthful movie entitled, "An Inconvenient Truth" be shown in all public schools. Do not allow the showing of any movies/documentaries such as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" ("It is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists.") made in Britain, that contradict Gore's movie and show it to be fraudulent.
[35] Start speciously calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. Pretend that carbon dioxide has caused global warmings in the past and that it's well on its way to causing the next one. Pretend that it threatens our existence. Create an energy crisis where otherwise none would exist. Despite major technological and innovative advances over several decades making the drilling, retrieving and mining of fossil fuels much more efficient, cost effective, and considerably more "friendly" to the environment, nonetheless, drive up, sky-high, those costs with government- imposed overregulation, overtaxation, or, in some cases, flat-out prohibitions. And, if that doesn't deter these companies in their further drilling, mining, or otherwise retrieving of (so-called) fossil fuels so to provide, safe, clean and cheap energy to the consumer, take away their and their investors' incentive to do this by threatening to take away their profits and instead use them "on behalf of the common good," as was threatened by a sitting US Democrat senator in Washington DC, namely Hillary Clinton. 1source 2source
[36] Spin these ever-increasing, artificially-imposed costs of fossil fuel energy as the best evidence that mankind is running out of cheap, easily obtainable fossil fuels. Many people begin to take lies as truth if they hear the same lies long enough - particularly if usually they rely primarily on sound bites and brief synopses here and there. Make the USA out to be this wasteful, capitalist, money-hungry lone superpower that supposedly belches out all this nasty civilization-snuffing planet-killing carbon dioxide where all its people should be ashamed of themselves and their country. If it chooses to continue to do so and not destroy its economy immediately, then it can instead postpone economic destruction and draw out a slow death for its economy by agreeing to pay lots of money to poor (except for their rich dictators as the case may be), backward, unsuccessful countries with undeveloped land in "exchange" for carbon credits.
Nothingness Morphed Into Valuable Commodity
[37] Yep, you got it. These poor, unproductive, and in some cases, despotic countries that have done little or nothing in preserving human rights (we call them unalienable here in the USA) for their own people (and for that matter, in some cases, have not officially even made slavery illegal), much less contributed anything meaningful outside of their own borders, will soon be greatly rewarded for their unaccomplishments and nothingness. To date, in many cases there has yet been a reason and therefore they have not yet been bribed with US tax dollars which we call "foreign aid." They've been on the outside looking in trying to figure out how to, without really doing anything, get some big chunks of that US currency flowing through their respective countries. Low and behold, wouldn't you know it? Miraculously, through great efforts of the UN, these foredescribed unachievements have turned into highly valuable commodities; with special thanks, too, of course going to the socialist visionary Al Gore. He's true to form. Today's liberal elitists love rewarding the most to those who deserve the least, whether here locally or internationally (- provided that the "reward" is funded substantially by someone else's money!).
113-year History
Global Warming & Cooling Crises
Cyclical In Press Every 30 Years
[38] As I had mentioned earlier, our country has a history of global warming or cooling crises, at least where the print media was concerned. History has a way of repeating itself, it's cyclical - whether in terms of warm/cold cycles on Earth, or global warming/cooling crisis scares in the media. source Impending climate crisis has a 113-year history in American media, with four such scares since then beginning in 1895 with the New York Times - telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age. Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.” "The world knew all about cold weather in the 1800s. America and Europe had escaped a 500-year period of cooling, called the Little Ice Age, around 1850. So when the Times warned of new cooling in 1895, it was a serious prediction."
[39] "After the sinking of the Titanic, on Oct. 7, 1912, page one of the Times reported, 'Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.'" On July 4, 1923, the paper announced that the “Explorer Hopes to Determine Whether new ‘Ice Age’ is Coming.” "The Atlanta Constitution" also had commented on the impending ice age on July 21, 1923. MacMillan found the 'biggest glacier' and reported on the great increase of glaciers in the Arctic as compared to earlier measures. 1source 2source
[40] "It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.
[41] The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” source
|
click on screen to watch
|
[42] By 1933 things were being reported the other way around. Articles in magazines and newspapers where saying and asking, “wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather” and asked “Is our climate changing?” “Ice in the Arctic ocean is about half as thick as it was in the late nineteenth century.” The Chicago Daily Tribune ran an article titled “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise.” “Longest warm spell since 1776,” a March 27, 1933, New York Times headline. Then, by 1954 it reversed again. A new "ice age" was upon us once again. source "There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now." The Cooling World, Newsweek, April 28, 1975 And now of course, less than 30 years later, we're back to another global warming crisis.
Elected Officials Culpable for Fraud
Upon the American Public
[43] It's time to take a stand and have our voices and disbelief heard as well as take other positive action on whenever possible. When we hear obvious BS, challenge it. Our country, the USA, as we know it may no longer exist if this fraud upon the American public is allowed to continue unchallenged. Our country will be hollowed out from the inside and weakened greatly if we allow others to take charge of dispensing how much energy we may or may not use, or for what we may use it. We are no more addicted to oil than we are to food. "Oil is the fuel of the freedom and the engine of democracy. Oil is the basis on which our economy is going to grow. " - Rush Limbaugh
[44] American freedom, liberty, ingenuity, creativity, entrepeneuralism, productivity and prosperity are many of the driving forces that made this nation great. Oil is the fuel for all of them.
Fulfillment of "The American Dream" Headed to Becoming Folklore
[45] The "point of no return" may not be that far away. Unless and until enough of us make it known by our actions and votes that we are not going to remain silent or otherwise continue going essentially along with, or even promoting in some degree, the false pretense that so many of our "popularity contest" seeking Republican and Democrat politicians have been deceitfully conveying to potential voters, but who nonetheless most undoubtedly all know by now that those potential voters are being bamboozled by one-sided, biased stories promoted by mainstream media [source] reporting speciously, in so many words, that:
- "Mother Earth" has very dwindling supplies of crude oil left in her, and that
- mankind is responsible, much less capable in any measurable degree whatsoever, for any one of the countless global warmings or coolings of the past, any in the present, or any predicted for the future (which would include any past, present, or future climate changes);
at least become prepared to comfort ourselves in knowing that we in our apathy or blissful ignorance will soon certainly qualify to become members of an ever-increasing group of "useful idiots" [“Useful idiots” is a term coined purportedly by Vladimir Lenin when referring to communist sympathizers in the West. He referred to those people who basically supported a totalitarian system without knowing that they were thereby participating in their own destruction, like sheep leading themselves to slaughter.]. 1source 2source
Useful Idiots To Aid Liberal Taking of
Americans' Wealth for Worldwide Redistribution
[46] This growing group of useful idiots will be helping something similar to a redistribution network, if not a UN redistribution network itself, that will engage as a middleman in the transfer and sale of carbon credits/offsets that in any case will, with the help of our so-called elected representatives, be taking away the hard-earned wealth of hard-working taxpaying Americans and business owners and using their tax money against them for a hidden motive to "level the playing field" around the planet. This of course is intended to be accomplished under the guise of "saving the planet" by brokering carbon offsets between highly productive, energy-using countries and countries that use little energy and produce next to nothing.
[47] We, the USA [full of useful idiots], will send millions and billions of dollars to underdeveloped backward countries that, in turn, in exchange for those millions or billions of dollars, provide USA business owners with what Al Gore assures are highly valuable "carbon credits" and "carbon offsets." If you haven't figured out by now, let me say it plainly, they're worthless and can accomplish nothing. At least Jack came home with beans that could grow into beanstalk when he went and spent the family's money - instead of absolutely nothing: Thank you Al Gore. How long do think any thriving economy could last if it were to spend larger and larger amounts of money internationally and received nothing in return? And oh by the way, not will they be only trying to fill in the "(des)pot holes" to supposedly "level" some imaginary economic playing field, but they will as well also be cutting or leveling off any previously held high-hopes and aspirations of Americans that, up to that point, had been motivated by incentive.
Liberal Nanny-State Promoters Trying to
Destroy American Dream
[48] "Less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth." The Wall Street Journal Do you think that personal incentive had anything to do with other 90% them becoming multi-millionaires? Don't think for a moment that they accomplished this by stuffing bills under their mattresses and it just added up after a while. These self-made millionaires accomplished this by building businesses, investment, reinvestment, creating jobs, and employing people to make better products and services that people wanted. In turn, by so doing, increasing the tax revenue for the country. What do you think would happen to job creation, employment, products and services, and growing tax revenue if, what is becoming more and more a nanny state government run by liberals whose great desire is the redistribution of wealth, for all practical purposes, takes away incentive? Obviously, not only will we needlessly spend more at the gas pumps. We all stand much, if not everything, to lose if the government is successful in removing incentive, that is to say, if American promoters of a world nanny state succeed at destroying the American Dream.]
Money Hungry Spend & Tax Politicians Suck 62¢ per Gallon Gas Tax From Americans
Compared to 9¢ a Gallon Oil Company Profits; Who's Doing the Gouging?
[49] Now where was I? Ahhh yes, back to the substance of the email appearing below and it urging us together to try to cause a gas price war in hopes of lowering the cost of a gallon of gas. How do we do it? We are supposed to go after those nasty money-hungry money-grubbing "big oil" companies such as Exxon/Mobil gouging us at the pumps. Let's really sock it to them, right? "After crude oil costs, taxes are the second largest contributor to the price paid at the pump. Together Federal and MN State excise taxes on fuel account for an average cost of approximately 62 cents per gallon," according to minnesotagasprices.com. Now compare that $0.62 a gallon to the average oil company profit of $0.09 a gallon of gasoline. 1source 2source 3source
[50] For the sake of argument, let's say for a moment that the stockholders of Exxon Mobile Corporation would be willing to give up any and all future profits with which they planned to fund their retirement or for any other motive for investing in those companies, for the "common good." Assuming that they'd nonetheless want to somehow remain in business, the most they could cut the price per gallon would be about 9 cents. Our money hungry politicians have about 62 cents with which to work. [As I write this, however, our politician are trying to increase those gas taxes even higher.] Bearing in mind that unless we're stockholder in the forenamed companies, we can't vote to fire or otherwise remove any executives in those companies. The same cannot be said about those whom we elect to hold office. Of the two, who would most likely be more and immediately responsive to our demands and also have more control over the price [7 times more] we pay at the pumps? Oil company officials or office holders that want to be reelected this November?
USA Politicians Favor Communist Countries Cuba & China
Over America In Florida Offshore Drilling
[51] Start voting and campaigning for politicians who will either remind or teach the voting American populous that the claim of foreign oil dependency is self-imposed by our own government that has restricted, over-regulated, overtaxed or downright forbidden the American people from enjoying low cost benefits of being able to utilize their own American natural resources. Any oil shortage claim in the USA is artificial and political and nothing to do with what is actually available to us. As of now, China and Cuba are drilling for oil offshore of Florida. Apparently, the environmentalist lobbies and our pandering politicians feel that the Chinese and Cubans are much more environmentally conscious when drilling off shore of the United States than would be our own American companies.
[52] Obviously, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Greenpeace and our elected officials, whether Democrat or Replican, who pander to them, favor communist countries over the American people. 1source 2source
- michael
"TV Infomercial Deep Discount Store!"
http://www.ShoppingSolution.com
Michael Holmes, Chief Operating Manager
ShoppingSolution.com LLC
POB 393, Willernie, MN 55090
ph.: 651-429-2943 Toll-Free 24/7 Order Hotline: 800-685-6345
ShoppingSolution@comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
From: [removed for reasons of privacy]
Sent: Subject: FW: THE PRICE OF GASOLINE please read and take note
ATTENTION: THIS IS NOT THE 'DON'T BUY' GAS FOR ONE DAY APPROACH, BUT IT WILL SHOW YOU HOW WE CAN GET GAS BACK DOWN TO $1.30 PER GALLON.
This was sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. If you are tired of the gas prices going up AND they will continue to rise this summer, take time to read this, please.
Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea.
This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the 'don't buy gas on a certain day' campaign that was going around last April or May!
It's worth your consideration. Join the resistance!!!!
I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 PER gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down?
We need to take some intelligent, united action. The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to 'hurt' ourselves by refusing to buy gas .
It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.
BUT,this is a plan that can really work. Please read on and join with us!
By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $2.00 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $3.19 for regular unleaded in my town.
Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace..not sellers. (OPEC announced this week that it would not increase production, thereby insuring that oil continues to sell for $104 per barrel and higher.)
With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action.
The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.
How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas.
But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.
Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL.
If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. (But, when they lower prices, you must resist rushing to their pumps in order to buy their gas. You have to avoid buying their gas completely, knowing that other service stations will follow suit in a matter of days. So hang on! Eventually prices WILL fall.)
To have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't bug out on me at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!
I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000)... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted!
If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! (And that's more than every gas buyer in the USA.)
Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all! Well, and, of course, stop buying gas from just one company.
Hw long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!
I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you!
Acting together we can make a difference.
There is nothing wrong with corporations making a reasonable profit. But $40.6 billion in just 13 weeks is a little over the top, don't you think? With millions of Americans losing their homes and with taxes going through the roof, we need some relief somewhere and there is no sign in sight that any politician will help us. So, this is up to us. Either hang together on this one or hang seperately--one at a time.
If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $2.00 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
Please Keep This Moving, and,
Thank you!
