There never was a consensus of climate scientists saying that global warming was man caused. It was all made up by the world power elite controlled bureaucrats and their media.

Read the real story and read about the real consensus of scientists that agree that global warming is not any danger to this planet. In fact, there is now more danger from what now appears to be a global cooling trend.

The liars now have society so brainwashed that now even when the earth is cooling and likely heading toward a dangerously long term cold trend all you still hear in the media and from the politicians is the global warming danger and the CO2 threat.

These greedy power brokers and socialist fascist control freak idiots are putting the world in economic danger and the danger of real energy shortages at a time when the absence of sun spot activity seems to be indicating that we are heading toward a long term global cooling. This energy shortage and cooling could bring energy crises worse than any you can imagine along with world crop failures and famine.

It is time to get these wacko environmentalists off of our back and to put leaders into place that will develop all energy sources regardless of the release of beneficial CO2.

Michael Coffman — Consensus? What Consensus?

CONSENSUS? WHAT CONSENSUS?

By Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D.
September 10, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

We have all heard the litany in the news that 2,500 scientists working in conjunction with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree with a 90 percent certainty that man is causing potentially catastrophic global warming. They even received the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, for their exemplary work in the field. This, we are told, is a solid consensus having very few dissenters. The problem is that this so-called consensus is a myth – it never existed. Ever!

Outraged with the sheer duplicity of the press and warming alarmists, OISM launched the same petition again in 2008. They used a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who’s who of Science, to mail the petition requesting the recipient to sign the petition if agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity.

The results, reported last May showed that 31,072 scientists, 9,021 of whom were Ph.D.s, signed the petition. Every signature has been vetted for authenticity.

Ironically, using the Freedom of Information Act, it has been proven that the so-called 2500 scientists the IPCC claims make up their “consensus,” are really not scientists at all. Of that total, only 308 scientists reviewed the 2007 IPCC report. Many of them disagreed, some strongly so. Not surprisingly, all of their comments were rejected and not included in the report. The remaining 2192 so-called scientists came from all walks of life; politicians, government bureaucrats, social workers, and apparently even a hotel manager. Less than 40 of the 308 scientists were generally supportive of the hypothesis, and less than 5 actually endorsed the report. Yet, the report was hailed by the media as the consensus of thousands of scientists.

Putting this into perspective, for every 1 scientist who even slightly favored the IPCC conclusions, 792 signed the petition saying there was no convincing evidence that there is man-made catastrophic global warming. For every Ph.D. that endorsed the IPCC report, 1800 signed the petition. If anything, there is a scientific consensus that man is not responsible for global warming. What did the media do with this potentially explosive story? They ignored it, as usual. A few, like Fox News, were gracious enough to have a byline on their website. Only the conservative media highlighted this phenomenal story.

It would seem the media, and by extension, the people who depend on it for accurate news, would rather believe a lie than the truth. This realization led Dr. Ross McKittrick, who discredited the hockey stick theory of the 2001 IPCC report, to lament, “We are now at the stage where mere facts, reason, and truth are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda.” It is a scary thought, but he is correct. Ignorance and propaganda now form the basis of our policy on climate change (and many other environmental issues). We are treading a dangerous path.

Full Article

Windmills are ridiculous as a primary source of power for this nation. The article I quote will give you some reason why.

I will give you some others. I live near windmills and it almost caused a revolution where they are being built. They have ruined a once beautiful area and nobody want to live around them. Even in this excellent article many important points were not addressed. The killing of the birds was not addressed. Where will all the steel and copper come from to build the hundreds of thousands of windmills that would be need?

Do these people think windmills do not have environmental impact? They need to think again. They have to mine huge amount of Iron to make the steel. Where do they think the copper comes from for the generators and power lines? It has to be mined. You think copper prices are high now let them build hundreds of thousands of wind generators and see what happens. Also, does anyone think it does not take huge amounts of power to build the factories and to produce the steel to make all these windmills? Then they have to be shipped to a site by many vehicles that use energy and tare up the roads. The windmills have to be erected and anchored on a solid foundation. The trees have to be cut down meaning that these areas will no long produce lumber or be carbon negative. The windmills will have to be maintained by maintenance crews who ride major sized off road vehicles. The windmills only have a limited life span and they will have to be replaced when they fail. There will have to be major back up power for when the wind is not blowing etc etc.

So lets cut through the bull about windmills being the answer for America’s energy needs. They are not. The fat cat billionaires that proposes this stuff do not live in the real world they have no common or scientific sense. All they see is opportunities to make more billions at your expense.

Hot air about wind power

At www.scitizen.com, Kurt Cobb worked the numbers. Generously, he presumed the windmills would use 5-megawatt turbines – generating three times the output of a typical 1.5-megawatt turbine. He compared that with a 500-megawatt fossil-fuel (coal) power plant needed to power a city of 300,000 people. A typical power plant, he noted, would cover 300 acres, but use only 30 of those for the actual facility.

Cobb calculated it would take 233 5-megawatt wind turbines to equal the coal plant’s output, since the wind doesn’t blow constantly. Each would need to be spaced 2,065 feet away from the others (five times the diameter of their 413-foot rotors). Adding the rotor diameters to the spacing requirement equates to a 110-mile long line of windmills, half a mile in width.

It comes to 55 square miles. That’s to provide electricity for a town of 300,000 people.

Going back to Kurt Cobb’s calculations, if we wanted to meet the electric needs of 300 million Americans rather than only 300,000, we’d need a half-mile swath of windmills, each of them hundreds of feet high, 110,000 miles long, crisscrossing the continent 40 times between New York City and Los Angeles.

That’s a lot of land to condemn. The cost would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, since each large windmill costs millions.

New York State’s largest windmill farm to date, the $400 million Maple Ridge project, features 195 medium-size (400-foot high) windmills, part of a windmill surge in upstate New York sparked by state and federal incentives. That project has generated great controversy even in its rural setting. According to area researcher Dr. Nina Pierpont, it has also created “wind turbine syndrome,” a variety of ills such as inner ear problems, headaches, difficulty sleeping, ringing in the ears, mood disorders, irritability, panic attacks and child misbehavior, all attributed to the low-frequency rumblings of the windmills.

There are practical problems, too. If the structures are put totally in the boondocks, massive new transmission lines must be built to carry the power to where the people are.

All this to generate power that is more expensive than our current power plants, even after major taxpayer subsidies are factored in.

Whether onshore or offshore, the gigantic areas involved to harness wind power will bring their own unintended consequences. The director of the Center for Global Change Science at M.I.T, Ron Prinn, warns that erecting enough windmills to replace fossil fuel power has adverse environmental impact. Prinn says those would “take significant momentum out of the atmosphere, so there’d be less penetration of wind to the ground surface.” Translation: You change the wind, and you change the weather.

Al Gore, why aren’t you speaking up about this?

Full article

In spite of the reports in the media about the great ice melt this year the Arctic ice melt was 30 percent less than the ice melt last year and Antarctica ice continues to increase. Some people just lie because it is in their interest to lie and to keep up the global warming hype. Anyone in Alaska will tell you that this summer was a very cold summer. It is amazing how some people want us to believe that a slight Pacific cooling is driving cooling over most of the Globe and that global warming is just taking a break for a couple of years. It is nonsense. Nobody knows what the long term climate will be because it has little to do with man made CO2.

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered | The Register

Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the “North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer”. Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.

The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.

The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.

And what of the Antarctic? Down south, ice extent is well ahead of the recent average. Why isn’t NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?

Some of what is in this article is what I have been implying on this Blog for months. We do have the ability to solve our energy problems and we can do it without T. Boone Picken’s self serving windmill scheme.

Actually our energy problem can be solved through free enterprise if only Congress, the environmentalists and the courts stopped hindering our oil development. If the hindrances were removed for national security reasons we could develop in short order all the $2 a gallon gas we need and we would have it for hundreds of years to come (adjusted for inflation).

Patrick Briley — Empowering Americans for Energy Independence

Oil and investment mogul and tycoon T. Boone Pickens has been telling Americans that they “have no control over the price of gasoline and diesel” and “cannot drill their way out of an oil crisis.” While Pickens is correct to point out that the US has become too dependent on foreign oil, his statements are misleading and very incorrect.

America does have the ability to produce enough oil from drilling and from coal, tar sands and shale to not only control, lower and stabilize gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices but to make the US independent of ALL foreign energy sources for over a hundred years even before the US would need to turn to significant numbers of nuclear fission and/or fusion electricity generating power plants.

Frankly T. Boone Pickens not only stands to make a lot of money on government subsidies for windmills he is flat out wrong on many counts. Oil will not hit $300 a barrel it is more likely to be $50 a barrel in inflation adjusted dollars for centuries to come if congress just allows oil drilling where we know there is oil. All we need is for liberal government and the environmental fascists to get out of the way and stop blocking the development of our oil and coal resources. If oil drilling was treated as the national emergency that it is we will solve the problem within a few years. We have the equivalent of trillions of barrels of oil in the US in oil shale, oil sands and coal. We have enough oil for many centuries, that will take care our our long term problem. We also have enough oil offshore that can be brought on line in a one to five years that will take care much of our short term problem.

It will not take ten years like the democrats claim unless government and the environmental fascists make it take ten years with their bureaucracy and lawsuits. We need to treat this like the homeland security issue it is and cut the red tape.

Pickens thinks we can free up natural gas with windmills and use the gas to power vehicles but even the gas people disagree with that. If we really wanted to free up natural gas we already have a much cheaper way of doing that. We would just have to build many more coal plants but God forbid that we dump any more helpful CO2 into the atmosphere and help the plants grow.

As I have said before, windmills have to be backed up by conventional power sources because when the wind is not blowing or it us blowing too hard as it often does in the Midwest windmills do not work. Solar does not work at night and there never will be any way to store power for periods of shortfall. So unless everyone stops using electricity when the wind stops blowing or is blowing too hard or after the sun sets this is not the answer.

Besides that, it will be an environmental disaster. Do these people have any clue what a eye sore blight this will be. 150 foot steel windmills will stretch from horizon to horizon along with their power distribution system that will make current electric lines look pleasing. It will decimate the bird populations. Do you think that giant solar farms will not have an environmental impact? What impact will they have on the animals that occupy that habitat? I will bet you will not take your family to have a picnic there. If you don’t believe me about windmills come to Western New York when they have put up these windmills farms and have ruined once very scenic ridge tops. People cannot sell their property because no one want to live near the windmills. Some people cannot tolerate the low noise that the windmills make day and night. The windmills will decimate the bird populations and they cannot produce electricity at anywhere near current rates. The costs of windmills are paid by taxpayers, robbing Peter to pay Paul, or higher electric rates.

Also notice that T. Boone Pickens proposes that they take property away by using eminent domain claims anywhere where they want to build their alternative energy boondoggles. Well folks, that is fascism and I and many others do not care if the courts say government can do that. This is contrary to the Constitution of the U.S. and people in the Midwest are not going to put up with it. Try to enforce your eminent domain land seizures in some part of the Midwest and you had better bring your own private army (I doubt if our national Army will support you). If You want a revolution in this nation Pickens is proposing a good way to polarize people to bring that about.

Now I want to know why congress is listening to a 80 year old multimillionaire who has vested interests in windmills? Obviously many people have many different ideas about how to solve this problem but they are not appearing before congress, so why only listen to this wacky old man who stands to make a lot of money on windmills? Could it be that he is telling Democrats what they already want to hear?

Here is another view of T. Boone Pickens and his windmilling of America that confirms some of what I said and other view from a different angle.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Oil prices will hit $300 a barrel in 10 years if the United States fails to reduce its dependence on foreign imports, billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens told U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday

Pickens has been touring the country pushing a plan under which domestic natural gas supplies would be used to power cars instead of electrical power plants. The federal government and private investors would build a massive wind farm system in the middle of the country from Mexico to Canada to provide electricity.

Pickens, who heads the hedge fund BP Capital, stands to benefit from such a program. He’s building a 4,000 megawatt, $10 billion wind farm in northern Texas that should start generating power in 2011.

industry group the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has said the Pickens plan could work if the government renews the production tax credit for renewable energy, preferably for longer than a year or two.

“I think we’re talking eminent domain,” Pickens told reporters after the hearing, referring to the practice in which the government sometimes seizes private property with monetary compensation. He said bringing the power to the coasts would take an effort similar to former president Dwight Eisenhower’s building of the national highway system during the Cold War.

The only reason it takes ten years to bring new oil fields to the market is environmentalist lawsuits and government bureaucracy. If we actually treated this as a national emergency we could bring new American oil to the market in one or two years. So everyone sick of these high oil prices needs to tell congress to get it done. Environmental concerns were waved in the building of the boarder fence in the interest of national security and so can it be in the drilling of new oil fields.

T. Boone Pickens is making a big national campaign to convince people that windmills are the answer. They are not. You have to have backup generation for windmills for when the wind is not blowing. That adds huge costs of duplication of generation. You also have to manufacture the windmills and build a power distribution system. That will take at least ten years before there is any major impact on energy. Also the natural gas they claim will be saved will never be used to power motor vehicles. That is simply a pipe dream.

So tell congress to drill here and drill now and to make it a national security issue so the environmentalists cannot tie up the drilling in court for years. Also tell congress to get the government to get their oil leases out on a more timely schedule. It is also interesting that this article claims that newer estimates put U.S. oil reserves at 350 billion barrels not even counting shale and oil sand deposits. That makes the reserves approach that of Saudi Arabia. When you count shale and oil sand deposits and coal we have trillions of barrels of oil. We have enough oil for the worlds needs for a thousand years and this oil is recoverable at less than $50 a barrel. So who needs ugly expensive windmills all over the landscape? Drill here drill now!

Investor’s Business Daily: Does It Have To Take A Decade To Bring New Crude To Market?

In areas where the bureaucratic hurdles are over and lawsuits are absent, oil has been drilled and brought to the market in as little as one or two years. Louisiana’s offshore areas are an example.

California’s 10 billion barrels in offshore oil could be brought to market in as little as a year “if the moratorium were lifted,” according to a recent Sanford C. Bernstein report said, citing that the oil is under shallow water and drilling platforms already exist.

To be sure, oil won’t be flowing tomorrow even if all drilling restrictions were lifted.

That doesn’t mean it won’t impact prices.

Oil prices are influenced by futures markets — where people buy and sell future supplies of oil. Futures prices are now higher than spot prices, a signal that supply is tight.

If we have the will to drill, we can break the negative market psychology and send oil tumbling back below $100 a barrel.

Al Gore needs to come down to earth from the moon, get his head out of his crystal ball and learn some fundamental science.

This Nobel buffoon challenges the U.S. to get every kilowatt of electricity out of what he calls “Earth-friendly” sources in 10 years. It can’t be done and everyone knows it. It can’t even be done in fifty years. He is even contradicting the Alliance for Climate Protection that he chairs. They say it will cost the nation 1.5 to 3 trillion dollars over thirty years and that does not even count the two billion it will cost for clean coal. So who do you think will pay this five trillion dollars? You will pay for it by higher prices on everything and through carbon taxes.

We do not have to be at the mercy of oil producing regimes. Environmentalists and globalists like Al Gore made that possible. We can once again be the largest oil producing regime on the planet. We have the largest oil and coal reserves in the world and it will cost only $50 a barrel to get it out of the ground. The oil is in oil shale and oil companies now know how to get it out of the ground without harming the environment. The U.S. and Canada have have enough oil and gas in shale, oil sands and coal to be a major exporter to the world for a thousand years. Granted it would take about 30 years before we can become a major net exporter but each year we will be producing more and more of our own oil at the equivalent of $2 a gallon gas. Those are the facts. However we need to get started if we are ever going to be a net exporter rather than an importer. That means that we have to allow oil shale development on Federal lands where most of it is located and coal plants needs to be built that will start converting coal to oil. The know how exists. Pilot project are under development that will produce oil out of shale for under $50 a barrel, the same methods can be used for oil sands. South Africa is now producing oil out of coal for most of the oil needs of their nation at $30 a barrel.

What really needs to be done is for Congress and environmentalists like Al Gore to stop blocking progress. CO2 in any level that man produces is beneficial to the earth. It makes green plants grow and there is no evidence that it is linked to global warming. In fact, as CO2 level continue to increase the earth has not cooled in over a decade and it actually started major cooling in the last two years. Alaska as I speak is having the coldest summer in a long time. Your not going to see pictures of ice free passages in the Arctic this year unless they use last years footage (that is not at all above them). So without any evidence they say global warming is taking a ten year break and it will start again once they ramrod their crazy energy policies on much of the world. This really has nothing to do with global warming it is all about global control of everyone.

Increased volcanic activity will more likely have more effect on CO2 in the future then anything that man does. Since man only causes less then five percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Another thing is Al Gore and other globalist like him are the ones who exported all our manufacturing to other nations. So they created the rapid uncontrolled development in China and India and now they say that these nations are causing the problem by using more oil. So they created the problem and now the same people who created the problem tell us the problem they created is the cause of the world oil shortage. Gee, maybe you people should of thought of that before you exported all of manufacturing jobs to nations that have few environmental controls. They governments are also subsidizing the cost of oil in these developing nations. If they let the free market set the price of oil many of the jobs would go elsewhere and China and India would not keep expanding at this insane rate.

Al Gore also does not understand economics 101. Oil prices can only go as high as people are willing to pay for it. They are not going to keep going up. If they did there would be a world depression and oil demand would decline. We heard the same nonsense under Jimmy Carter in the late 70’s but then oil prices declined under Ronald Regan due to free enterprise.

That is why anytime you hear of the likelihood of a recession in the U.S. oil prices suddenly decline. If we had a severe recession in this country all nations exports would suffer and these countries would be using less oil. It is possible that in a world recession oil prices could be back under $30 a barrel. There is also new oil coming on line in the next two years that could help push prices down. The main reason oil continues to go up is on the future speculation that demand will increase ten years down the line. However, if we start major drilling programs and other energy development that will take the future out of the oil futures market and oil will go down to what it is actually worth.

I suggest they we have a moon project and send Al Gore to the moon before the globe suffers irreparable harm from the global carbon scheme that he is pushing and his crystal ball predictions of doom.

My Way News - Gore sets ‘moon shot’ goal on climate change

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand.

To meet his 10-year goal, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the nation dramatically increases its use of solar, wind, geothermal and so-called clean coal energy. Huge investments must also be made in technologies that reduce energy waste and link existing grids, he said.

If the nation fails to act, the cost of oil will continue to rise as fast-growing China and India increase demand, Gore said. Sustained addiction to oil also will place the nation at the mercy of oil-producing regimes, he said, and the globe would suffer irreparable harm.

Government experts recently predicted that, at the current rate, world energy demand will grow 50 percent over the next two decades. The Energy Information Administration also said in its long-range forecast to 2030 that the world is not close to abandoning fossil fuels despite their effect on global warming.

The carbon taxation has started in some nations already and in some cities in the U.S. In Britain they all will soon have carbon rationing cards if the British people are stupid enough to let the politicians get away with it.

The tax and grab your freedoms fascists are planning this for everyone worldwide to fund their socialist fascist global government. They will start with a modest tax and then keep turning the screws. They will have their own fascist carbon police force to enforce all their dictates. These green fascists know if you control carbon you control everything on earth.

They plan to pass tax laws here in the U.S. next year if we do not stop them. If oil ever goes down they plan to increase the taxes to make up the difference. Obama loves the idea and McCain is in the same boat.

If Al Gore and his Gaia worshipers think they can dictate to us how to save a world that warmed one whole degree in the last hundred years but cooled back to where it was last year, just so they can tax us for their fascist global government, then I suggest we let them live out their lives on Antarctica. There they can get first hand experience about their global warming BS.

NWV News — Americans Will Be Taxed for Their Carbon Emissions

Some well informed conservatives in the United States are sounding the alarm about plans to tax Americans for carbon emissions purported to cause what’s been dubbed, “Global Warming.” Adding to their fears of oppressive global climate taxation is a recent event in Canada. Read GPF on global taxes.

On July 1, citizens of Canada’s British Columbia began paying a so-called carbon tax for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The provincial government is levying the tax on most fossil fuels, including gasoline and home heating fuel. British Columbia hopes the new policy will cause people to drive less and conserve more energy, thus leading to a significant cut in greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly contribute to climate change.

In addition, according to Mike Baker, a political strategist who has studied the new Canadian tax law, citizens will be expected to pay taxes for wood stove and fireplace emissions, farm equipment, trucks, automobiles and anything else that utilizes fossil fuel. He predicts there will come a time in the not to distant future when even water and clean air consumption by individuals will be taxed.

“New ‘Gobal Warming’ cops will be hired to drive around the county looking for smoke coming out of peoples chimneys and write hefty tickets to those that refuse to comply. A goldmine of new found money coming to city and county cofers,” added Baker.

“If replicated in the United States — as Al Gore and others want — this will be one of the biggest power grabs in US history.

“It’s all about who will control the earth resources. It’s big government laying claim to the waters, oceans, lakes, forests, birds, animals, earth’s land surface, the air we breathe, the food we eat and the sky and space, as well as you and me!” said Joan Veon, CEO of the Women’s International Media Group and a recognized expert in politically-motivated scientific research. British government is already dictating to their citizens to stop wasting food.

“Little by little, the world is being re-organized using capitalism as the global engine to also change the structure of government from government to public-private partnership which is a co-management of government by business,” she said in a telephone interview with NewsWithViews.com.

Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is in fact a convenient lie that fails all analysis according to history and experience. Yet here, and obviously in Canada, our elected representatives feel compelled to rush ahead with legislative attempts to save the planet from man-caused global warming with their vehicle of choice: taxation.

“Given the paucity of fact supporting the allegation, one has to wonder about the true motive of these legislators. These people are not ignorant. One can only conclude that their interest is in the legislation, not the problem it is said to cure. The goal then is the taxation and its justification is “save the planet.” No more. No less. And the objective of that taxation is, as always, the redistribution of wealth according to the standards of the intelligentsia in the government.

“The neo-Marxist liberals in this nation and throughout the world have failed in bringing about global socialism with their many attempts at duping Americans. Now they’ve found a weapon they believe will scare even the staunchest capitalist, freedom-loving American into giving up his or her freedoms for the sake of saving the planet from the evils of human existence,” said Mike Baker.

Baker added “In order for the people to reverse this diabolical trend, they must vote out all the sell out politicians on the local level across the whole country, and only elect those who will serve the people.”

Have we become nothing but turnips (since man no longer is sovereign) and now they can tax us for every breathe of air, every shower, every hot cup of tea, every yard we drive in our car, every hour that we have a light bulb on, and every carrot we plant and water?

Everyday I have to endure the lies on major media that blame global warming for everything from the floods in Iowa to the fires in California. It is not only nonsense it is flat out lies and lying on news programs to deceive the public should be illegal. If they had an ounce of scientific knowledge they would know that global warming is not the cause of these climate events. Yet they keep saying it is. The elitists running the media want that disinformation told. It is nothing but a blatant lying brainwashing campaign to get the globalist tax and grab agenda passed.

In this article Dr. Tim Ball tells you why the floods and violent weather this year were more likely the result of global cooling and why you can expect more violent weather it in the future. Yet, you can be sure that national media will keep blaming all climatic events on global warming. God forbid that a major hurricane hits the U.S. this season. Every global warming bill in the congress will be instantly passed without a shred of science behind it.

CFP: Alarmists use weather to promote global warming hoax

Claims that recent severe weather and flooding in the US are proof of human CO2 impacts on global climate are scientific nonsense. They are part of a pattern of keeping weather and climate issues in the public mind.

There are three major problems with what is being said. 1. The severe weather of this spring across the Northern Hemisphere was caused by cooler weather not warmer. 2. The IPCC and the NOAA positions that severe weather will increase with global warming is scientifically wrong. 3. The records show current weather extremes are well within long term natural variability.

This trend of severe weather is most likely to increase as the Earth continues to cool. Proponents of human caused climate change will claim it proves them right. They will continue their practice of claiming natural events as unnatural. Unless people understand the basic science they will continue the fraud and pressure politicians into even more damaging energy and environmental policies.

I have been saying all along that the global warming hype is just a global governance power grab to control everything. It all fits the sustainable development plan of the U.N. It is not a conspiracy it is a real published U.N. plan called Agenda 21. They want to manage everyone and everything in the world.

I think Tom Deweese does a good job expressing what is really going on in this article. After reading this article you should know why most of your politicians have done nothing but hinder the development of our known energy resources. The oil shortages and the media’s daily global warming carbon lies have been designed for the purpose of global governance.

Going Green = $4 Per Gallon - CWN

Going green (its real name is sustainable development) has led to Orwellian regulations resulting in the destruction of American businesses and the jobs that go with them, including manufacturing and industry; the locking away of American natural resources like oil, timber and minerals, forcing expensive imports; the near abolishment of private property, the bedrock of any economy’s source of wealth; and massive invasion of the farming industry to assure it is “sustainable,” including the mandated use of corn for the making of ethanol, leading to food shortages and higher prices.

Above all, the “go green” mindset has resulted in a refusal by political leaders and Congress to even consider anything but renewable fuels as a legitimate source of energy. Last year’s Energy bill, supposed to be the guideline for energy policy for coming years, literally made no mention of any kind of energy but alternative fuels like wind power, solar and ethanol. And the American people, buried under an avalanche of environmentally-correct propaganda, have blindly accepted the go green mantra, missing its connection to their economic woes.

At a time when the nation is facing an economic meltdown because of rising gas prices, oil use is ignored in the most important energy policy in the nation. Astonishing. As prices continue to rise, Washington’s response is “there’s nothing we can do. “President Bush says, “I wish I had a magic wand.” John McCain says “prices will continue to rise.” Barack Obama says “tax the oil companies,” as Congress begins a witch hunt on them, pledging the get to the bottom of their “excess profits.” Senator Barbara Boxer says “now is the best time to raise energy prices.” The Democrats want to “sue” OPEC.”

In all of this rhetoric, notice how NO action that includes the drilling of oil is considered. It’s taboo. Off the table. Suffer America, because the wisdom of the day is that oil is out. Alternatives are in. Go green! This, of course, completely ignores the fact that the U.S. uses oil for 85% of its energy needs.

Such policy is driven by the Sustainable Development lobby. Led by massively wealthy and powerful special interests like the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, the National Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice, to name a very few. With their dollars and lobbyists, they are forcing Congress to implement the policies outlined in the UN’s Agenda 21 soft law document. It pretends to be environmental policy, but is really a complete transformation of our society and economy to a top down control, leading toward global governance. The environment is just the excuse to convince unaware Americans to give up their liberties “to save the earth.”

What you are not being told is that the Left is opposing the development of the HUGE oil reserves in the U.S. and Canada through congressional legislation. The Federal government is now not allowed to buy oil sands oil from Canada but that is only the tip of the iceberg. Drilling on oil shale lands on Federal lands in the United States is illegal thanks to congress. Between the oil shale lands and the tar sands we have more oil reserves then the rest of the world combined and it can be developed at less than $50 a barrel. On top of that the democrats block off shore drilling and they are trying to legislate the shutting down of our coal industry. I think the worst enemy of the people of the United States is our own domestic socialist and environmental Democrat terrorists. Next time you pay the price at the gas pumps don’t forget to thank yourself in your car mirror for voting in Democrats.

Obama Gets Tough – On Canada! - CWN

one of the few bright spots in the foreign oil market has been our neighbor to the north – Canada. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that the number one foreign supplier of our imported oil is Canada, not Saudi Arabia. Canada is not only a reliable supplier of drilled oil and natural gas, but it also has incredible supplies of oil trapped in “tar sands.” At current prices, it is cost effective to “squeeze” that oil out of the tar sands and bring it to the marketplace. By every estimate, the oil in Canada’s tar sands rivals Saudi Arabia’s known reserves. Already that oil represents 47% of Canada’s total output and other countries, especially China, are trying to sign contracts to get it.

But if Barack Obama has his way, we are likely to watch that oil go everywhere but here. Last week, in a statement most of the media ignored, he called the Canadian oil “dirty,” and his top energy advisor raised serious reservations about whether the United States under a “President Obama” would even want the tar sands oil. And since Barack Obama opposes drilling for our own oil, guess what will happen to the price at the pump when we take the Canadian oil off the table?

But that’s really the Left’s dirty little secret — it doesn’t object to high gas prices. In fact, the Left see higher prices as just one more way for Big Government to control your life.

Now get this: Last year, liberal California Democrat Henry Waxman snuck a provision into the 2007 energy bill that prohibits the federal government from using coal-based fuels, oil shale and tar sands, all of which the United States and Canada have in abundance, in order to combat global warming. The United States Air Force is desperately trying to get this provision repealed since it immediately recognized the potential risk to our national security of another Arab oil embargo now that Rep. Waxman and his fellow Democrats have prevented the Air Force from using Canadian oil sands. It’s hard to fly planes if you can’t get the jet fuel you need. Efforts to repeal the Waxman provision are being led by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), two outstanding conservative champions.

Global warming has been discredited but the lies go on and on like the energizer bunny. Someone should tap the source of the energy in all the global warming gas bags and we would solve the energy crises.

By the way, coal prices are falling because Europe is cutting back on coal because of their fear of CO2 emissions. If we had any brains we would now use this opportunity to convert coal into oil. Not that America is going to stop worshiping their own global warming gas bags anytime soon.

The real reason people want to believe that global warming is man caused is that they know they are guilty of defiling the planet but like all pagans they think they can fix spiritual defilement with some physical appeasement. They think they can just go to high priest Al Gore, buy indulgences from Carbon Gaia and Gore will give them absolution to continue to spiritually defile the planet.

Global View - WSJ.com

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it’s time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn’t evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that global warming isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.

So let’s stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief.

The case is made that we could get all the oil we need out of coal and that we have more oil potential in coal than there is in the entire oil reserves in the world. Coal is already being made into oil in South Africa for about $55 a barrel. I would think that it would take a number of years to gear up in the U.S. and government and the radical environmentalists would have to get out of the way. Yet, coal is not all we have.

We also have oil shale reserves with more oil in them than the entire Middle-East reserves. Oil shale will be even easier and more enviornmentally friendly to get out of the ground than coal. It is much the same as drilling for oil except the necessary extra steps done below ground will still make oil profitable at $50 a barrel. So both oil production methods could produce all the oil we need for hundreds of years and give us gasoline for about $2 a gallon. I have not even talked about the oil sands of Canada that are just as huge.

So don’t let anyone tell you that we do not have the capability to get off of foreign energy dependency. That might be the party line but those who say such things are either ignorant, they are lying or they want crazy environmental restrictions. The only thing that is stopping development of all these resources is politicians. It is Congress and their government regulations.

If it were announced today that the U.S. would develop these resources on a unlimited scale oil futures and oil prices would drop like a rock half the price today is speculation. Also OPEC would panic and try to gear up production to lower prices below the price that we could develop these new resources in order to retrain their monopoly on oil. In that case, we would have to set a floor price and put a tariff on imported oil to keep it up to a price where these new resources could be developed and not undercut by Middle-East oil producers that extract their easy oil at less than $4 a barrel.

FrontPage Magazine

This in effect means that as long as the price of crude oil remains above $55 a barrel – and there is every reason to believe it will – America can enjoy fuel self-sufficiency for as long as the eye can see.

It is important to grasp the full import of this: Unlike all the other ideas and proposals for achieving oil independence, coal conversion represents no false hope or wishful thinking but an eminently feasible and realistic possibility.

No new inventions, no technological breakthroughs, no extensive infrastructure modifications, no lengthy testing, no public investment or government incentives are required to make it happen. Everything is already in place to bring it about

All that needs to be done is to remove any artificially imposed impediments that may stand in the way. Most of them are in the form of environmental rules and regulations which make energy production such a difficult and problematic enterprise in this country.

As far as the environment is concerned, coal conversion and its derivatives are cleaner than their crude oil counterparts. There is technology to capture the CO2 released during the liquefaction process and the resulting diesel and kerosene have lower sulfur content than those refined in the conventional way. As a result, during the combustion process they release fewer particulates and less nitrogen oxide then their petroleum cousins. Such, in fact, is their purity that they are often referred to as ultra-clean fuels. This should go a long way toward assuaging environmental concerns.

The rising energy prices have made it possible for America to commercially utilize its enormous coal reserves and to become fuel independent in the process. The only thing required at this point is for government not to interfere with market forces which inexorably incline toward this outcome.

This article tells how Al Gore used his political power to channel money to spread his global warming apocalyptic lies in order to transform society to his socialist vision of world governance through “enlightened” people like himself. Gore is one of the top con artists of our time who uses peoples fears and peoples greed for money and power. Al Gore especially likes to scare children and the gullible to create a sense of panic. His real agenda is leftist fascist eco-extremism. You probably have about one year to prick this gas bag or laws will already be set in place to eventually tax, control and regulate everyone and every product on earth.

FrontPage Magazine

“Cynical politics” may be a redundancy, but it is hard to imagine a more cynical political issue than global warming (GW). In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, Al Gore called for a “wrenching transformation of society.” Leftists, with their elitist penchant for social engineering, didn’t need any convincing. The challenge for Gore was the inconvenient truth that, in a democracy, a would-be central planner needs to get the masses on his side, too. To do that, he borrowed a strategy encapsulated in H.L. Mencken’s statement, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Apocalyptic GW became Al Gore’s hobgoblin of choice.

Gore needed the scientific community to back up his assertions and the media to spread the word. Enlisting the help of the media was easy (apocalyptic fantasies are sure ratings winners), but getting enough scientists on board was trickier. When Gore started his GW campaign in the early 1990s, a contemporary Gallup poll of scientists showed that only 18 percent thought there was any evidence to support Gore’s theory. Even a survey conducted by Greenpeace found only 13 percent of climatologists willing to declare GW “probable.”

Nevertheless, Gore repeatedly claimed that (literally) 98 percent of scientists agreed with him, and he exhorted reporters to ignore skeptics. Right from the outset, the GW cult (like other illiberal movements, such as communism and fascism) had to resort to the “big lie” technique to make it appear that the science of GW was settled.

Kyoto’s agenda wasn’t to save the world, but to shackle economic activity in this country through curbing energy consumption. It’s easy to understand why foreign economic competitors would want this, but why would Gore and American liberals want to do this to the American people? The answer is simple: the lust for power and importance. Remember: control energy and you control people.

We had a minor heat spell in the East recently it did not last long. The projection for next week in the Northeast is unseasonably cold. The violent wet weather in the Mid-West is due to unusually cold air clashing with the warmer air to the south and as this article indicates it has been very cold in the Northwest.

Your not hearing about melting polar ice caps this year because it is not melting like last year. Ice breakers are still not making it through. It seems that the earth’s climate has changed for the colder in the last two years but all you hear from the controlled media is the politically correct global warming hype.

If the present crew in Washington are too stupid to figure out that there in no global warming crises. I say get rid of the whole lot before they impose trillion dollar carbon tax schemes on everyone. That is their plan. Also put Al Gore in a padded room so he cannot cause more damage then he already has.

Will Media Report Cold Spells This Summer or Only the Heatwaves? | NewsBusters.org

Media have been falling all over themselves to report the recent heatwave in the East, but have been ignoring the cold spells happening in other parts of the country at virtually the same time.

For instance, did you know that the first week of June was the coldest in Seattle since 1891? Or that Aspen is actually re-opening this weekend to offer winter sports enthusiasts some rare June skiing in the area? Or how about the fact that unusually cold waters off of Nova Scotia are harming this year’s lobster crop?

Aren’t such unseasonal weather events just as newsworthy as heatwaves in summer? Or must they be ignored to fit the media’s global warming template?

I agree with Joe Farah on the “Drill for American oil NOW!” campaign. I have brought up the same issues he does in this article. Unlike him I do not think nuclear is a solution. It would take ten years to get a plant built, nuclear costs too much and with terrorism and earth upheavals nuclear plant could be catastrophic.

The WHOLE energy problem right now is created by politicians. If politicians would just get out of the way there would be plenty of energy available in the U.S. in fairly short order.

Oil drilling in Alaska and off shore would do much to solve the short term problem.

Lifting the restrictions on drilling and development of oil shale resources would solve the problem five to ten years down the line. Do you realize that we can get oil out of oil shale for less than $30 a barrel and we have oil reserves much larger than those of Saudi Arabia? We could pump shale oil for hundreds of years. The new techniques that are in pilot project stage right now are not environmentally unfriendly. There would only be one oil well per 640 acres of grazing land in Eastern Colorado and North Dakota. That seems more environmental friendly than the windmills I see around here every 40 acres that produce electric at the energy equivalent of more than $500 a barrel oil.

The other thing causing unnecessary energy problems and which will make them worse in the future is the global warming hype. Increases in CO2 actually benefit plants on earth and 31,000 scientists signed a statement saying that there isn’t any man caused global warming danger. We have the largest coal reserves in the world but new coal plants that can provide low cost energy and synthetic oil are being stopped by those who exhale climate change junk science.

So the bottom line is that we have the means to obtain cheap energy in short order but unless you tell your politicians that are knee jerking to Al Gore’s religious crusade to get out of the way you can expect to pay $10 a gallon for gas in the middle of an inflationary great depression.

That’s your choices, MAYBE one half of one degree warming over the next hundred years and drilling where other countries are drilling or two decades of inflationary depression and poverty. Let your politicians know which choice you have made now!

Drill for American oil NOW!

The average price of regular gas went up to $4 a gallon for the first time over the weekend.

How much higher will the price have to go before Americans demand prohibitions and restrictions on domestic oil drilling be lifted?

“Drill for American oil NOW!”

It’s more than gas prices at stake. The price of just about everything is rising as a result of skyrocketing oil prices controlled not by Americans but by foreigners – even foreigners hostile to American interests.

As simply a matter of national security, it doesn’t make any sense not to drill. But now that we’re all feeling the pinch in our pocketbooks, I believe the time is right for a national uprising.

Are you with me?

Will you join the crusade?

The last I heard the cost of reducing man made CO2 will cost the world about $45 trillion dollars. Read the below article and put this in perspective. Man caused CO2 in relation to our atmosphere represents a dime standing on its edge on a hundred yard football field. If we went all out to reduce CO2 it would be represented by a dust speck on that dime. (Any reductions in temperature after spending this $45 trillion dollars would not even be measurable on normal thermometers even if CO2 driven warming theory were true and it is not)

Now don’t you think it is time to tell your representatives to stop this carbon tax foolishness that will wreak economies, needlessly drive up the price of energy and cause the poorest people on this planet great hardship and even starvation? If your still not getting it I do not know how we can made it any clearing to you? There is no man caused global warming crises! If you still believe you obviously just have blind faith in your global carbon priests.

American Thinker: Global Whining vs. the Truth

Thus, the biggest chunk of global warming that has supposedly coincided with the Industrial Revolution and the increase in evil carbon dioxide, mostly occurred after the Little Ice Age and prior to 1940.

And Congress needs to understand this: carbon dioxide is not our foe. It is a fertilizer that is essential for life on planet earth; it is no more a poison or pollutant than oxygen or water.

In his must-read eco-thriller, State of Fear, Michael Crichton creates a brilliant visual to assist us in wrapping our minds around the components of Earth’s atmosphere. On page 387, he likens the atmosphere to a football field. The goal line to the 78 yard-line contains nothing but nitrogen. Oxygen fills the next 21 yards to the 99 yard-line. The final yard, except for four inches, is argon, a wonderfully mysterious inert gas useful for putting out electronic fires. Three of the remaining four inches is crammed with a variety of minor, but essential, gases like neon, helium, hydrogen and methane. And the last inch? Carbon dioxide. One inch out of a hundred-yard field! At this point I like to add, if you were in the stands looking down on the action, you would need binoculars to see the width of that line. And the most important point-how much of that last inch is contributed by man-made activities? Envision a line about as thin as a dime standing on edge.

Are you still worried about the dangers of CO2?

Me, neither.

If you want to know why it is costing you $4 a gallon for gas the person responsible can usually be found in your own mirror. It is the people that you elect to office that has allowed us to become hostages to OPEC and their extortion. We have plenty of energy resources right here in North America that could be developed at about $30 a barrel and we have enough of it to last for hundreds of years but our government is standing in the way.

A Conservative Energy Agenda - HUMAN EVENTS

North America’s energy resource base is enormous. It includes the world’s largest oil shale deposits, the world’s largest coal deposits, and the world’s largest oil sands reserves. Combined, these resources are sufficient to power North America for centuries, giving us plenty of time to transition to new energy sources as they become affordable. Meanwhile, all of North America would benefit from more indigenous energy production. A coordinated effort between the United States, Canada and Mexico — could help unlock North American energy policy and put us once again in charge of our own destiny. Along the way, it would help with our illegal immigration problem; if Mexico strengthens its economy through energy development, there will be more opportunities for work at home. Currently, that money is going to the far-flung reaches of the world.

We also need to repeal Section 526 which prohibits federal contracting for “nonconventional” sources of petroleum. This section, inserted by Congressman Henry Waxman, stops U.S. federal agencies from contracting to buy the frontier fuels of the future based on how they are made. Investment in frontier fuels will play a critical role in reducing America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy. Advanced fuel technologies, including coal-to-liquids, natural gas-to-liquids, fuel from oil shale, and fuel from Canadian oil sands are specifically targeted by Section 526. This makes no sense.
America cannot run the world’s greatest economy on expensive and imported energy for much longer. It is time to use our own supplies, and America has no shortage. We simply lack the political will to push government aside and put Americans to work producing them. As soon as that happens, our frontier energy sources — which rival those of any other continent in the world — could set America on a path to a stronger, more robust and more secure future. But first, government has got to get out of our way.

This is one great article about all the different aspects of global warming and it has the very latest information. This one article alone should make you question the sanity or honesty of many well known people promoting carbon legislation.

One demented preacher in the news today said that man caused global warming deniers are like child molesters. I want to reply to him that those who promote this carbon hoax on the world are murders! They are causing legislation and unnecessary burdens that will bring untold misery and death to many of the poor of the world. It will even cause famine and revolutions. But what do they care, many leading this facade think that poor people are useless eaters that the world would be better off without anyway.

If that is not enough carbon legislation will bring in world fascist where everything everyone does in the world will be controlled by carbon bean counters controlled by unelected elitist global governors.

FrontPage Magazine

The scientific consensus today is slowly beginning to shift away from the catastrophism of Gore, Suzuki and the United Nations IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, to suggest that the human contribution to global warming is far less than originally assumed and that a meteorological calamity is highly unlikely. (The IPCC, which certified and entrenched the so-called “scientific consensus,” is essentially a political body with an agenda of its own.) See Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Daily Tech online, and the journal Energy and Environment, whose findings are based on a survey of the ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) Web of Science database covering almost 9000 scientific publications.

Other reports conclude that “solar variability” is the major component in climate change and will run its course regardless of human intervention. As David Douglass writes in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society (December 2007), in a peer-reviewed article co-authored with several prominent scientists, “The observed pattern of warming . . . does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

The most sophisticated climate models indicate an undeniable discrepancy between surface and tropospheric temperature changes, which points to the sun as the primary agent in the long-term, fluctuating temperature curve. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, patiently explains that the sun, which contains 99.8% of the mass of the solar system, in its hydrogen-fueled atomic fusion process, “consumes more mass in a second than all the fossil fuel ever burned on Earth,” the terrestrial impact of which reduces the human input to global warming to a level of insignificance. Though Coleman doesn’t cite actual figures, the fact is that the sun pours in excess of a million billion megawatt-hours annually on the earth. But he does quote the highly respected Australian mathematician and former carbon consultant for the Australian government, David Evans, who argues that “carbon emissions don’t cause global warming.” According to Evans, the IPCC models are wrong and the mathematics show that the human signature in the atmosphere is missing (KUSI News online, November 8, 2007).

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, author of the soon-to-be-translated Blue Planet in Green Chains, is on the mark when he warns of the irrationality of the bullish “global warming” industry: “As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism . . . Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives”

NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who has professed some skepticism about certain aspects of global warming research, especially with regard to theoretical computer models that tend, as he says, to run before they have learned to walk, was startled to realize that “you can’t express any sort of contrary opinion or a comment without it being treated almost as a religious issue” (Newsmax.com, March 17, 2008). The doxastic progression here is: science-politics-religion. To use Irving Kristol’s word, human beings are, whether we like it or not, “theotropic” beings.

Indeed, the metamorphosis of politics into a debased form of religion may be the bedrock definition of that otherwise debatable term, “fascism,” further specified as “ecofascism” by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudermaier in their book of that title.

Stupid congressional policy is one of the main causes of your high gas prices. Now you have a chance to do something about it by going to the link and signing the Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less. petition. I think we should be able to get many millions of signatures. We need to make the message to develop the oil reserves we have so damn clear that even the Liberals get weak at the knees.

Drill Here, Drill Now - HUMAN EVENTS

Congress is coming back on Monday to try to pass legislation such as the Warner-Lieberman “cap and trade” anti-global warming bill which — by itself, and without the costs added by other Democratic initiatives — would boost the price of a gallon of gas to levels paid in Europe. (Yesterday, the price of a gallon of gas in England was about $6.23.)

Gingrich told me:

At a time when the Congress should be finding ways to lower the amount of cost to put gas in your wife’s car, they are actually proposing to increase the cost of gasoline, increase the cost of diesel fuel, increase the cost of aviation fuel, increase the cost natural gas, and increase the cost of coal. This is at a time when truckers are at a danger of being put out of business. Airlines are in danger of being put out of business. It’s just absolutely amazing.

It is amazing, because there are so many government obstacles to energy development that Congress could eliminate, if it chose to. Gingrich explained:

[I]t’s currently illegal to explore the Atlantic. It is illegal to explore the Pacific. It is illegal to explore the Eastern Gulf Of Mexico. It is illegal to explore Alaska and it is currently illegal to look for shale oil. Now, if you basically…and this is what makes the recent decision by the House to vote to sue OPEC an act of absolute childishness. If you’re not prepared to allow Americans in America to look for oil and gas in America, how can you have the arrogance to say to some foreign country they have to pump more of the stuff we’re not willing to pump?

Gingrich’s petition starts with the commonsensical proposition that instead of creating more burdens on the energy market, Congress should go about taking down the old barriers. In Gingrich’s characteristically plain English the petition says:

We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries.

As of about 8:30 pm Thursday, the petition had about 150,700 signatures. Gingrich aims to get 200,000 signatures by this coming Monday. Every conservative — and every voter who wants to see energy prices go down and not up — should sign the petition. (You can sign the petition by clicking on this link).

“We’re going to print out the petition, take it up and give it to the US Senate. Then, we are going to continue to gather names. When we get to 500 thousand we’re going to take it up and give it to the US House, and then we’re going to try to gather an excess of a million signatures before the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention.