Hillary_clinton

Upon reflection, my published letter at Illinois Review on Monday, June 25, “Conference disappoints scientists and climate experts,” demands a postlude, as I failed to give Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s her due in her role as the top U.S. official representing and negotiating for the U.S. at “Rio+20.”

A Free Republic  post told of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announcing on Friday, June 22 a $20 million partnership between the United States and African nations to boost clean energy projects.  After all, green investments have been such a smashing success in America!

The $20 million African aid money is part of the United States’ contribution to the United Nations Sustainable Energy for All initiative that was launched last year by the U.N.

According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, 50 countries have so far pledged $50 billion to the sustainable development effort.  The aim of the initiative is to double the share of global renewable energy by 2030.  The U.S. share of $2 billion and will be in the form of public-private energy technology and grants, loans and loan guarantees to support the initiative.  

So did Hillary go to Congress and did Congress give her the $20 million?  After all, Congress does hold the purse strings. 

What Africa needs more is clean water and food getting to its citizens given mass starvation and annual incomes of under $100 per year and where tin pot dictators, the military and government scrape off their fees leaving little left of any monies received.

Africa certainly doesn’t need windmills and solar plants. 

It is only fair to compare Hillary’s gift from America through the UN to Bush’s effort to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa. 

The link to Hillary Clinton’s remarks at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development Plenary in Rio on Friday, June 22 can be heard here.     

Hillary Clinton was also among those who expressed disappointment that the term, “reproductive rights” (the code word for abortion for those on the Left) did not make it into the final document coming out of last week’s United Nations sustainability conference in Rio de Janeiro, although the text did call for “universal access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable modern methods of family planning.

Clinton received enthusiastic applause for her comment, “Women must be empowered to make decisions about whether and when to have children,” and then added that the US “will continue to ensure that those rights are respected in international agreements.” 

Clinton’s remarks in Rio stood in contrast to the approach taken by the Bush administration in response to earlier efforts to have “reproductive rights” language included in international documents.

In late 2002, for example, the U.S. stood firm in its opposition to the inclusion of phrases like “reproductive health services” and “reproductive rights” in a plan of action being drafted at a U.N. Asia-Pacific population conference in Thailand. conference in Thailand.

 

 

 

CFACT (Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow) announced in its Special Report from Washington, May 2012, Volume 6, Issue 2, that the organization would be attending the “Rio+20” UN Conference on sustainable Development in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, from June 20 – 22. 

Noted was that CFACT would be sending a “Rio-20” team to battle the greens dangerous agenda to include Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley and Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, along with a stellar group of scientists and climate experts.  

Further revealed was that CFACT would be returning to Rio de Janiero after twenty years to once more confront the greens.  It was at the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio that the foundation was laid for the Kyoto Protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.  Also established was the Convention on Biological Diversity which gave UN bureaucrats and environment activists new powers to control the development of nations.

It is only fair to ask where the coverage was, especially here in Illinois, of the just  concluded June 20-22 Rio U.N. Conference?

The Washington Times did publish an excellent editorial on Monday, June 18, Just say no to Rio, which spoke of the private jets on the tarmac fueling up in time for the Wednesday kickoff of the Rio+20 Earth Summit.  It was reported that as many as 50,000 attendees were expected in Rio de Janeiro — including 130 heads of state — where U.N. globalists hoped to recapture the spirit of the first Rio earth conference in 1992.  

In offering insight about the upcoming Rio U.N. conference, the Washington Times editorial recounted the three times since 1992 (Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban) when the U.N. failed to convince countries to back their hot air with cool cash.

The Times editorial also spoke of the desire by U.N. backers to have participating nations approve the creation of a global green tax with a  kitty starting at $30 billion, with the possible ratcheting up to $100 billion by 2020. 

I became interested in the June U.N. “Rio+20” Conference while attending Heartland’s iccc7 event from May 21-23.  It was then that I heard Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley speak about the upcoming event.  I also had the chance to meet and talk with Marc Morano, Executive Editor and Chief Correspondent of Climate Depot, who informed me that he would be posting articles from Rio.  www.ClimateDepot.com 

With the arrival of the opening day of the “Rio+20” Earth Summit on Wednesday, June 20, I was more than ready to follow the happenings way down south in Rio.  This was easily accomplished by logging onto Mike Morano’s Climate Depot site.      www.ClimateDepot.com  

Mike Morano was featured prominately in Rio when he addressed a packed room at a CFACT press conference at the UN complex in Rio.  Morano’s address elicited a hostile question and answer session.

Following are selected highlights of Marc Morano’s address in Rio:

“What a difference 20 years makes.  This is a mockery of where we were for 20 years.”

“I challenge U.S. activists, environmentalists, Greenpeace, and the media to ask Sec. Hillary Clinton what the objective here in Rio is for the U.S.  Her objective is nothing more than to check a box and get the hell out of town.  She is going to be conning people if you believe she is here for substantive agreement.”  (President Obama was clearly reluctant to be seen with fellow spendthrifts at a time when his re-election is jeopardized by his own three-plus-year long spending binge.)

“We are witnessing an historic moment in history of the UN.  UN IPCC chair Pachauri is now saying global warming is but a secondary problem to sustainability.  The UN is now saying saving species is a greater urgency than global warming.  They have now thrown global warming under the bus in favor of species extinction.”

“Failure here is good for the world’s poor people.  Failure is the only option for this conference if you care about the environment and poor people.  Carbon-based energy has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of our planet.”

“James Lovelock, the father of the modern green movement, says sustainable development is meaningless drivel.”

“I will go further and say we need to redefine sustainable developments as oil, gas, coal — energy that works and energy that lifts people out of poverty.”  

A rather hilarious Climate Depot post tells of the U.N. taking away toilet paper to get rid of media as the stench of Rio’s failure fills the air

Much like the Chicago River in Chicago is dyed green for St. Patrick’s Day, the image of Christ was made a forcible convert to the eco-faith as the city of Rio bathed the iconic statue of Christ the Redeemer in green light.    

If interested in reading more posts of “Rio+20” at Morano’s Climate Depot site check out HERE.

The skinny is now in about “Rio+20”.  In an article by Reed Landberg and Alex in Morales in Bloomberg News, it was related how the United Nation’s biggest accomplishment at the Rio meeting was its ability to obtain pledges worth $513 billion from government and companies for projects aimed at reducing the strain on the planet’s resources.  Even so world leaders and environmentalists were unhappy with the U.N.’s failure to set strong enough goals. 

In an article by Bradley Brooks, Rio+2, The unhappy environmental summit, the “Rio+20” outcome is summarily described:

“It was hard to find a happy soul at the end of the Rio+20 environmental summit.

Not the legion of bleary-eyed government negotiators from 193 nations who met in a failed attempt to find a breakthrough at the United Nations Conference on sustainable development.

Not the thousands of activists who decried the three-day summit as dead on arrival.  Not even the top U.N. (Secretary-General of the conference, Sha Zukang) who organized the international organization’s largest-ever event.”  

But not so for the 100 heads of state who attended the conference; it was hailed as a success in that the “Rio+20” conference was a conference to decide to have more conferences.  In essence the mere fact of agreeing to talk became a victory, given that past environment summits — with their unrealized goals — have failed to net the results hoped for.

As to the nearly 50 pages of text the leaders signed at the end of the meeting, titled, “The Future We Want,” environmentalist groups complained of the low expectations set forth in the document and further questioned how the Rio conference could be considered a success when instead of mandating how to achieve sustainable development, the document merely “reaffirms” (59 times) the need to achieve economic stability, the same as was agreed to twenty years ago at Rio 1992.  

Even so the UN 0.7% target is still in place.  Know as the “Millennium Project” — first pledged 35 years ago —  it asks that the world’s richest governments commit 0.7% of their gross national product (GNP) to Official Development Assistance under the assumption that the rich world can provide enough resources to meet the Millennium Development Goal. 

As of June 2005, sixteen of the twenty two donor countries had met or agreed to meet the 0.7 target by no later than 2015.  The U.S. has yet to agree to a timetable to reach the UN’s target of 0.7%.  The Development Goals would cost about $75 – $150 per person per year.    

A report presented by Marc Morano of Climate Depot in December of 2011 outlines the scientific reality on virtually every claim (A to Z) which shows how the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing. 

Morano’s A – Z report includes key facts, peer-reviewed studies and the latest data and developments with links for further reading on an exhaustive range of man-made global warming claims

It is a report that would be well worth your while to print out and save for future reference.

As noted in my Illinois Review post of Wednesday, June 20, that day a vote for Senator James Inhofe’s S.J. Resolution 37 was scheduled to be brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote, only to be summarily voted down on a mostly partisan vote.

Inhofe’s resolution would have prevented the EPA from implementing “Utility MACT” which has been described as the most economically devastating regulation in its 42-year history. 

Unfortunately, neither the announcement of the proposed U.S. Senate vote on Wednesday, June 20, or the results were thought important enough to report in the Chicagoland media. 

I read about the defeat of Inhofe’s S.J. Resolution 37 on-line in the Wyoming Business Report, in which Wyoming’s two Republican senators, Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, were cited as voting down Utility MACT with its requirement that coal plants use Maximum Achievable control Technology in plant operations. 

Senator Enzi described Inhofe’s proposal as “the only legislative vehicle available to stop the Utility MACT rule from moving forward.”

According to Senator Barrasso, now that MACT has been allowed to proceed, its mandated greenhouse gas standards will make it virtually impossible to build a new coal-fired power plant in the United State, while many in existence will have to be shut down.

One study by the National Economic Research Associates estimates the Utility MACT rule will result in the loss of between 180,000 and 215,000 job losses by 2015, further increasing electricity rates by 6.5% on average and and as much as 19.1 percent in some areas of the country. 

Inhofe’s resolution to defeat MACT failed, 46 to 53, mostly along party lines.  Even so five Democrats from coal-rich states voted with Senate Republicans.   Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) was not among them. 

Isn’t Illinois also a state rich in coal?  Isn’t Durbin concerned about job losses in Illinois’s coal mining communities or the increase in electric costs when coal plants here in Illinois close their door when they can’t meet the stringent standards.  Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) didn’t vote. 

It is five Republican senators, however, that must be held accountable for providing the fatal votes against stopping Utility MACT, having sided with those have bought into the “consensus” theory that rejects hard scientific facts proving otherwise, that CO2 emissions — what we breathe and what plants need to live — is at the root of causing man-made global warming.  

They are: Lamar Alexander (Tennessee); Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire); Scott Brown (Massachusetts); Susan Collins (Maine); and Olympia Snowe (Maine).

It is rather strange that four of the five Republicans who voted to keep MACT in place are from northeastern state with brutal winters that require heat to keep warm.

Doesn’t Senator Durbin realize that IL is a coal state as well as a cold state during its winter season?

Illinois’s mandated wind and solar power just won’t do to provide Illinoisans with their ever increasing future energy needs!

 
Senator Inhofe’s proposal to end Obama’s ‘war on coal’ brought to floor of Senate on June 20 and voted down 
 
Members of the U.S. Senate will have much to answer for who voted against Senator Inhofe’s Utility MACT proposal (SJR 37.)

Contrary to the announcement of the Environmental Protection Agency on Dec. 21, 2012, informing the American people of the new Mercury and Air Toxic Standard formulated to “protect American Families,” the EPA’s stated goal defies logic and completely contradicts the truth.

Instead, it is to advance an ideological agenda that is almost entirely divorced from real science regarding the environment and human health.  Current regulations (and more important, technological advances) already protect “American families” from any hazards associated with power plants.  Emissions are near enough to zero, already making detection of a public health effect virtually impossible.

The only rational for these new regulations is to shut down coal production in the U.S., thereby raising energy costs to handicap business and industry, slow economic growth and consumption, and “stop global warming,” the latest and least credible riff on radical environmentalism.

Known as Utility MACT (the Mercury and Air Toxics rules), mercury is cited as the principal Harmful Air Pollutant (HAP) targeted by MACT.  Unlike most air-pollutants mercury poses health risks not via inhalation, but only after being deposited in water bodies.  Mercury in itself is a naturally occurring metal found in the earth, seas and the atmosphere.
.
The EPA contends that the children of pregnant women can have impaired cognitive and neurological development from consuming enough mercury from eating fish, even though the EPA was not able to identify a single child whose learning or other disabilities could be traced to prenatal mercury since the EPA was asked by Congress 22 year ago to study the issue.   http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/06/12/big-costs-illusory-…   
 
As cited by Mario Lewis, Jr. in an op-ed originally published in Forbes, the MACT reference or “benchmark” set for mercury at 1/15th the lowest exposure level does not represent a viable measure to suggest any fear of a health risk or a public health threat. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/06/12/big-costs-illusory-…
 
The Seychelles study off the coast of Africa, described in an article by Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), in which Haapala further relates how MACT is just another way for Obama to “skin the cat” given that his own Democrat Party failed to pass cap-and-trade, found that no impaired cognitive functions were found even though the residents ate large amounts of sea food.  There was no association between prenatal mercury exposure and IQ, even though exposures in the Seychelles study were as high as 22 times the reference dose.   http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/26/us/study-sees-low-risk-from-a-tai…
 
With all the hub-bub over the ingestion of mercury on the children of pregnant women, the most devastating impact of MACT should it be implemented, and which is at the center of the Obama administration’s war against coal, would be the first Clean Air Act standards ever established for carbon pollution in new power plants.  The proposed Utility MACT rule requires new coal plants to install a costly technology that is not yet commercially available, nor when available will installation guarantees that a company is in compliance with the EPA regulations.   
 
Even the EPA has estimated that the Utility MACT and other regulations targeting power plants will cause the retirement of about 10,000 megawatts of coal-electric generating capacity, with many more plant closures to be announced rather than to comply with the EPA regulations.  
 
Numerous operating utilities have already announced shutting down their coal-fired power plants because they cannot economically meet the standards.  The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reports that eight of the ten service territories in the eastern US will fall below key reliability thresholds by 2018 and may be subject to brownouts or blackouts.  Furthermore, the only major health benefits arising from the MACT regulations are already covered under other regulations.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/06/12/big-costs-illusory-…
 
Senator Manchin (D-WV) and a few coal-state senators have been waging a lonely battle against the White-House and its EPA.  Manchin has expressed his dismay at how many Americans, even in coal-producing states, do not seem to realize that coal-fiied electric plants are critical to the health of the economy and to holding down the cost of life for families.  At least 21 states rely on coal for 50 percent or more of their electricity.   www.journal-news-net/page/content-detail/id/577909/Lonely-Battle.ht… :   
 
Given the far-reaching negative scope of the the Utility MACT Act, some progress is being made to push back against the radical thinking of those pushing a radical agenda that concludes if the world doesn’t change course on climate now, within the near future a build up of enough high carbon energy infrastructure will lock our planet into an irreversible and devastating amount of global warming, which is a theory only, and not based of the hard facts of science. 
 
Check out  http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/  to hear approximately 60 invited scientists and policy expert speak discussing what real science is revealing about climate change, as presented at The Heartland Institute Seventh International Global Warming Conference held this past May in Chicago from May 21 – 23.)
 
An attempt to stop the EPA Utility MACT rule will be made this Wednesday, June 20, by Senator James Inholf (R-Okla), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, when Inhofe is anticipating that the Senate will take up his resolution (SJR37) to end MACT. 
 
Democrats supporting Inhofe’s measure are Mary Landrieu of Lousiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nevada.  As stated by Senator Inhofe:  “I applaud Landrieu, Manchin, and Nelson who are listening to their constituents abut the pain President Obama’s Utility MACT rule will inflict on them.”Senator Inhofe claims to have secured the support of nearly 80% of the private sector, as represented by businesses not doing well in the face of EPA’s job-killing regulations.  http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/06/15/inhofe-sets-a-date-for-sena…

How ironic it is that on the same day Rio + 20 will begin in South America, and in which the U.S. will participate, the U.S. Senate is anticipated to vote on Senator Inhofe’s bill to stop MACT (Rio + 20 is the UN Conference on Sustainable Development with its major objective to establish and handle a proposed $100 billion per year fund to fight man made Global Warming caused  by  CO2 emisssions.    http://unfccc.int/meetings/rio_conventions_calendar/items/6940.php

Just what does the Obama administration’s EPA believe its Utility MACT rule will accomplish if allowed to stand, as warming predicted in models has never been verified or validated.

Climate change has been ongoing since the formation of this earth with cyclical warming period hundreds of thousands of years before CO2 was wrongly cited as climate change agent.  

As predictably as the day changes to night, Climate change will continue regardless of what UN bureaucrats decree for the rest of the world to heed, or how much money is spent to fight a don Quixote-like, folly like mission that will only end up severely reducing this nation’s future economic prosperity.  

According to a credible report in Britain’s Daily Mail on January 12, 2012, we are to forget global warming.  

It’s cycle 25 we need to worry about if NAS scientists are right in predicting that the Thames will be freezing over again.  According to the Met Office new figures released show of of no warming in the past 15 years.  http://www.infowars.com/forget-global-warming-its-cycle-25-we-need-…

Unlike some government leaders, Mother Nature is not influenced by money.   

Members of the U.S. Senate will have much to answer for if Senator Inhofe’s resolution (SJR 37) to end MACT is brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote this Wednesday and is defeated.

 
 

Image

SKOKIE – Joel Barry Pollak was the featured speaker at a meeting of the Chicago Chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Dr. Michael Menis, president, on Monday evening, June 11, at the Holiday Inn in Skokie.

There was an overflow crowd in attendance to hear Pollak speak about all things political and particularly about his new position as editor-in-chief and in-house counsel for Breitbart.com after the untimely death of Andrew Breitbart on March 1st of this year.

Dr. Michael Menis expressed a warm continuing friendship for Joel Pollak which initially came about when Joel, still a student a Harvard in April of 2009, had a heated exchange with Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. 

During the exchange, prompted by a speech given by Barney Frank at the Kennedy School of Government, Pollak challenged Frank for his role in the subprime mortgage crisis.  
 
Hearing about the incident Dr. Menis called Harvard to find out who this chap was who had the courage and fortitude to confront Barney Frank head on.  Dr. Menis discovered that Joel Pollak had grown up in the Chicago suburbs, principally in Skokie, and that he had attended Niles North High School.  Dr. Menis immediately extended an invitation to Pollak to speak at an upcoming meeting of the RJC Chicago Chapter, which he accepted.

In stepping up to podium Joel Pollak was overwhelmed with the size of the turnout.  Married in December of 2009 to wife, Julia, Joel was proud to announce that both his wife and their baby daughter, Maya, were in attendance.  Joel quipped that Maya shared the same birthday as Andrew Breitbart, February 1st.

It was  Andrew Breitbart who had initially asked Joel Pollak to relocate to CA to help him “take the world back” after Pollak lost his challenge to Democrat Jan Schakowsky in the 2008 Illinois 9th District race.  Andrew Breitbart had come to the aid of Joe Pollak to help in opposition research.  To the dismay of both Pollak and Breitbart, no research had ever been done on Jan Schakowsky, as never before had she been confronted with a viable Republican challenger.

In Joel Pollak words, “I gave Jan the fight of her political life.”

Revealed by Joel Pollak is that Andrew Breitbart had spent the previous year of his life working on a new website project.  Days before Breithart’s website was to be rolled out came Andrew’s sudden death on March 1st of this year. 

But despite a time of great loss and sorrow, Joel Pollak recounted how Breitbart’s year-long passion became reality when his new website project was launched only three days after his death

Pollak believes if the election were held today it would be a close one, but one Romney would likely win given that Romney’s support is often under counted when likely voters are tallied instead of registered voters. 
 
Interesting was Joel’s Pollak’s explanation of why Romney is on TV far less than Obama, and how Obama is at a loss to know what to do about it.

Romney’s handlers, recognizing that Obama wants to make the November elections a choice between himself and Romney, realize that Romney’s campaign needs to be fought on a referendum of Obama’s policies.  With this in mind, Romney’s campaign strategy doesn’t require that he appear on TV constantly.

Pollak believes what happened in 2008 with the election of President Barack Obama couldn’t have happened if the facts about Obama had reached public awareness, as were revealed in Edward Klein’s book, “The Amateur,” released in May of this year. 

Ed Klein, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine, writes of “a callow, thin-skinned, arrogant president with messianic dreams of grandeur supported by a cast of true believers.”     
 
Another revealing book released in May, David Maraniss’s “Barack Obama: The Story,” relates Obama’s fondness for pot and alcohol while attending high school in Hawaii.    
 
Maraniss’s information about Obama’s abuse of drugs and alcohol while young, however, is not new.  The same was revealed by Obama himself in his 1995 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” at which time Obama wrote about smoking pot with the same casualness as Dr. Seuss might have used in writing his book, “Green Eggs and Ham.”   abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-and-his-pot-smoking-choom-gang/

Pollak suggests Barack Obama might have been the original source of the rumor out of which the  first “birther” story evolved.  
 
Not known back in 199l, and as a preamble for promoting his first book — the never published “Journeys in Black and White” — Obama wrote the pamphlet,  “Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” The promotional booklet was then marketed by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Action & Dystel, to his colleagues in the publishing industry.  theintelhub.com/2012/05/18/obama-literary-agent-in-1991-born-in-kenya-and-raised-in-indonesia-and-hawaii/ 
 
Might it have been that Obama wanted to appear more exotic to potential readers back in 1991?  Not until 2007, and only weeks before Obama was to announce his 2008 candidacy for president, was “Born in Kenya, Raised in Indonesia and Hawaii” scrubbed as an internet posting.

Of concern to Joel Pollak was the absence of vetting candidate Obama in 2008 by the media, especially noticeable here Chicagoland where I reside.

After all, Obama’s radical Chicago roots stem back to Derrick Bell which links to Chicago.  While a law student at Harvard, Obama considered Derrick Bell (a writer of inflammatory racial nonsense) his mentor and a father figure.

While a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Obama assigned Derrick Bell’s readings to his class. The Obama-assigned introduction to Bell’s book, Faces at the bottom of the Well, contains many inflammatory statements, such as:  “Slavery is, an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”     
 
Pollak’s information that President Obama had more than likely been a member of the New Party in Chicago had never reached the mainstream media. Awareness of the information was credited to Stanley Kurtz who obtained the information through his search of archives.   

Powerful and active in the 1990’s, the New Party was dedicated to electing leftist candidates to office.  Two organization formed the backbone of the New Party:  ACORN and SEIU. Strong evidence exists that Obama belonged to both.  
 
Andrew Breitbart, related Pollak, purposely looked to break stories that were not being covered in the mainstream media, realizing that the media played a large role in determining elections and in the selection of stories deemed prudent to share with the public. 

Breitbart wanted to create content, not just criticism.  He wanted to do investigative journalism that no one else was doing.  He was invested in helping people who were taking a stand against what the media didn’t wish to hear.  He further believed in protecting people who went up against the media.
 
It was Breitbart who uncovered the Acorn and the Weinergate story. 

He was also first to document the sex and sexual assault occurring at Occupy Wallstreet in NYC.  Despite the determined and combined efforts of the media to have Occupy Wallstreet succeed in the same way for Democrats as the Tea Party movement had for Republicans, the movement is now dead for all practical purposes.

According to Pollak, “The American people are not comfortable thinking of their fellow Americans in terms of division and class warfare.”       
 
Breitbart also led the pack in outing sympathetic doctors who were handing out absentee slips to teachers rallying in Madison, Wisconsin, to recall Governor Walker, just because he dared and then upped the bounty to $100,000 for a video submitted that would prove Tea Party participants held racist signs in protesting Obamacare.

The money never needed to be paid out (a relief to Joel as he didn’t know where Andrew expected to find the money ), as the racist Tea Party incident never happened, but that didn’t end the unwarranted dehumanization and victimization of the Tea Party. 

About bias in the media, Breitbart believed that bias is fine if the media is honest about it.  Previously left-leaning in his politics, Breitbart changed his political views after experiencing an “epiphany” during the late 1991 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas who was charged with sexual harassment.  Listening to Rush Limbaugh also helped to change Breitbart’s political and philosophical positions.

Breitbart was also impressed with the Drudge Report.  Drudge introduced Breitbart to Arianna Huffington when she was still a Republican, which led Breitbart to subsequently assist Huffington in creating her own website to ensure there would be more voices on the Left to present contrasting viewpoints.  www.huffingtonpost.com 
 
Pollak gave these words of advice for all to heed:   “We must make this election a referendum on Obama’s failures.  Remember that we don’t have to take it.  Each one of us is part of the media.  We can push back against what we know is false.  Each one of us has something to contribute, so use that voice and speak up, because THAT IS WHAT DEMOCRACY IS ALL ABOUT.

In the question and answer period, Joel Pollak addressed several questions in the following manner:
 
1.  What does the future hold for Breitbart News with the premature death of Andrew Breitbart?   It will continue with the same philosophy that guided Andrew.  The addition of radio is likely.  Definitely there will be more vetting of Obama’s Chicago connections before the November elections.  

2.  Who is your choice for vice president?    Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin because the Catholic vote is critical in some states like PA.  Ryan might also be able to bring Wisconsin into the Republican column.

3.  Will the money bags of George Soros and his efforts to shut down talk radio though the Leftist organizations he funds take talk radio off the air?  If Soros-funded groups were successful in shutting down any part of talk radio,

Breitbart.com would lead the effort in fighting back.  Pollak did say that conservative talk radio could never be destroyed because there is a market for conservative ideas.
 
4.  Why did the attempt at pension reform succeed in Wisconsin but fail in Ohio?   Governor Walker was astute enough not to connect policemen and firemen with his pension reform legislation, while Ohio’s John Kasich did.  For even Republicans are averse to hearing that those who protect them could be negatively affected in some way.  
 
5.  What might be the outcome of the upcoming Obamacare vote by the Supremes?   Joel spoke of there being eight possible outcomes, but didn’t give explanations.  Breitbart.news does have a reporter assigned to covering the Supreme Court.  Overturning all is very possible, according to Pollak.

Imageart Part

Part 2:  Former employees unite to dispute unproven global warming claims by NASA –         retired astronaut, Walter Cunningham of Apollo 7 mission, a member of nasa letter writers panel 

As former employees of NASA, it was only a matter of time before the concerns expressed by all five at Heartland’s iccc7 “The NASA Letter Writers” panel would lead to action over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory. After all NASA and the GISS failure to objectively assess all available scientific date on climate change threatened the reputation of NASA’s current and former employees and even put science itself at risk for public ridicule and distrust.

Credited in “getting the ball rolling” was the Moderator of “The NASA Letter Writers” panel, Leighton Steward. He suggested that a letter be written and sent to NASA after finding through a series of lectures presented at the Space Center in Houston to ex-NASA scientists that 90 percent of those present disagreed with the NASA-GISS global warming position.

Steward’s suggestion was realized in a joint letter sent on March 28, 2012 to the Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C.  A sure sign that the NASA-GISS is about over.

The NASA letter was signed by 50 former NASA scientists and astronauts, included seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.    http://polymontana.com/?p=7128  

Together the 50 NASA experts have more than 1000 years of combined professional experience. http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/50-top=aswtronauts-scientists-engineers-sign-letter-claiming-giss-is-turning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock/ 

With enthusiasm the appropriately named iccc7 conference participants now dubbed “The NASA Letter Writers” —  Cunningham, Schmitt, Doiron, Wysmuller and Steward — were signors of the joint letter to NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, Jr., which asked Bolden to refrain from making unproven and unsupported remarks about global warming.  
 
The March 28, 2012 letter to NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, Jr., can be viewed in its entirety at this site:
http://www.cfact.org/a/2112/Astronauts-and-scientits-send-letter-to-NASA-Stop-global-warming-advocacy   
 
News was made during Heartland’s “The NASA Letter Writers” panel event with an announcement of a followup NASA letter prompted by NASA’s failure to end spreading information with outlandish global warming conclusions.  The text has been written and signatures are now being gathered. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/22/nasa-astronauts-announce-second-letter-to-nasa-at-heartland-conference/

Recently a new website has been created which features all five of the “The NASA Letter Writers” http://www/therightclimatestuff.com  in their combined present-day mission to take on the challenge of evaluating the narratives of both the advocates of AGW and also the Skeptics of AGW.  As related to me by Thomas Wysmuller, the new website will eventually include other educated and experienced scientists and engineers from various disciplines.   
 
Individual presentations are already up for review.   http://www/therightclimatestuff.com/StudiesReports.html   
 
Also worth investigating is the website noted on Thomas Wysmuller’s business card http://www.colderside.com  which denotes his availability upon request to present a lecture and slide presentation to University, High School, and public/private organizations that answers questions such as “Is Global Warming real? and “Is the Arctic polar cap rapidly melting?”  For information contact tom@colderside.com  

Even though the five participants in Heartland’s iccc7 “The NASA Letter Writers” panel arrived in Chicago from their homes in different parts of the country, I was eager to hear if there might be a local Lake Forest, IL connection among those featured and another retired astronaut, Commander James Arthur Lovell, Jr., who flew four missions (Germini 7, Germini 12, Apollo 8 and Apollo 13), with a NASA career that started when Lovell was chosen in 1962 to participate in the space program, until he left NASA in 1973.  
 
With my home in Lake Bluff adjacent to upscale Lake Forest, IL, Lake Foresters have every reason to be proud of its celebrity resident and retired astronaut, Commander James Arthur Lovell, Jr. http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/astronauts/english/lovell_James.htm%C2%A0    
 
Furthermore, the celebrity status of James Lovell, Jr. became widespread when in 1999 James Lovell and his family opened up “Lovells of Lake Forest,” a classic, full service restaurant in the heart of West Lake Forest where area residents go to experience fine dining in an environment of casual elegance.  On display are items that relate to Lovell’s astronaut days.  http://lakeforest.patch.com/listings/lovells-of-lake-forest    See also:  http://www.lovellsoflakeforest.com/apollo-13-lovells 

Eager to hear of any local connection, I approached Walter Cunningham of Apollo 7 fame, asking if he knew James Lovell, knowing that Lovell’s Apollo 8 mission on December 27, 1968 mission http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/astronauts/english/lovell_james.htm  followed in close proximity to Cunningham’s October 11, 1968, Apollo 7 mission.
 
And there was!  Walter Cunningham not only knew James Lovell, Jr., but he had trained with Lovell for many years. Likewise,Thomas Wysmuller was well acquainted with Lovell as a former employee at the Johnson Space Center.  
 
Further inquiring of Walter Cunningham why James Lovell, Jr. wasn’t participating as one of  “The NASA Letter Writers”?, Cunningham replied, “Jim is likely involved in other things, and he’s also getting old.”
 
Perhaps Illinois’s Lake Forest celebrity and former NASA astronaut, Jim Lovell, Jr., needs a nudge to become involved himself in the noble efforts of his fellow NASA compatriots.  
 
The Heartland Institute, which has gained worldwide recognition as a credible man made global warming skeptic through its presentation of seven International Climate Change Conferences http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/  is certainly not about to back down even after “Fakegate” attempted to paint a false and disturbing picture of Heartland’s motives and tactics.  Fakegate.org  
 
Well worth taking the time to read –especially in the aftermath of  Secretary of Defense Panetta linking global warming to national security www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/05/03/leon-panella-claims-global-warming-is-now-a-national-security-threat — is Roger Aronoff’s “For Accuracy in Media” report based on a recent interview with Sen. James Inhofe which focused on his his powerful new book, The Greatest Hoax.   

Roger Aronoff commends Sen. James Inhofe “for his courage, wisdom and persistence in practically single-handedly resisting the forces in the media, and in Congress, who insist that the U.S. line up with the U.N. and adopt the draconian steps required to engage in this budget busting, business, destroying endeavor that would impinge on our national sovereignty and person freedoms.”
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/the-greatest-hoax-global-warming-says-sen-james-inhofe/  

Scientific truth is based on hard evidence, not “consensus” opinion.  May more American patriots who care about their nation now and in future years step up to the plate before it is too late.  Being an authority on Global Warming, as Al Gore and countless others claim to be, is not a criterion for judging the validity of an argument with prophecies of horrific happening to Mother Earth unless man substitutes green sources of energy to counter the inappropriate global warming stigma assigned by believers to coal and oil.

 

 

 

 

Part 1:  Scientific Truth based on hard evidence, not ‘consensus,’ must prevail

Every one born in the 50’s surely remembers January 27, 1967, that horrific day when the crew of the first manned Apollo mission were in their spacesuits conducting a simulated countdown to the CSM and the launch vehicle prior to their scheduled launch the following month. After five hour of delays and problems, a spark inside the spacecraft ignited flammable material and instantly engulfed the closed compartment in flames which resulted in the asphyxiation death of Vigil I. Grissom, Edward H. White II, and Roger B. Chaffee.

Following the Apollo 1 mission tragedy, unpiloted Apollo 4, 5, and 6 missions were conducted, during which time great improvement made to the CMS led to the launch of Apollo 7 on October 11, 1968. Its crew members were Walter M. Schirra as Commander; Donn F. Eisele as Command Module Pilot; and R. Walter Cunningham, as Lunar Module Pilot.      http://www.astronomytoday.com/exploration/apollo.html

So it was that The Heartland Institute-sponsored May 21 – 23 iccc7 event featured former NASA Astronaut Walter Cunningham, a U.S. Marine, fighter pilot, physicist, and the Apollo 7 Lunar Modular Pilot, during  a group discussion panel held on Tuesday, May 22.  The panel’s  theme, “The NASA Letter Writers.”    
 
Others retired NASA employees featured on “The NASA Letter Writers” panel at Heartland’s Seventh International Climate Change Conference were Astronaut Harrison Schmitt, Ph.D. of the Apollo 17 mission, a Geologist and former U.S. Senator from New Mexico, and two former NASA scientists, Harold Doiron, a Physicist, Mathematician, and a Mechanical Engineer who worked for decades on NASA vehicle stability and design, and Thomas Wysmuller, a Meteorologist and former employee at the Johnson Space Center.  

Serving as moderator was H. Leighton Steward, a Geologist, Environmentalist, Author, and a Retired Energy Industry Executive. http://climateconferences.heartland.org/walter-cunningham/
 
Walter Cunningham and Harrison Schmitt, Ph.D., both fulfilling the role as Lunar Module Pilots on their respective Apollo 7 and 17 missions, likewise participated in Apollo space missions that were unique unto themselves.
 
For Walter Cunningham his Apollo 7, October 11, 1968 mission was the first manned earth orbit flight test of the CSM after the Apollo 1 disaster.  Accomplished was a successful docking rendezvous essential for further Apollo missions involving a Lunar Module.   http://www.astronomytoday.com/exploration/apollo.html

For Harrison Schmitt his Apollo 17 mission on December 7, 1972, was the eleventh and final manned mission in the American Apollo space program.  As such it remains the most recent of manned Moon launching and the most recent manned space flight beyond the low Earth orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/Apollo_17
 
For with the liftoff of space shuttle Atlantis’ on July 8, 2011, this nation experienced the end of the era for space travel, at least  for the foreseeable future   Under President Obama’s plan the U.S. will rely on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft until the private sector kicks in to develop spaceships to take astronauts to the International Space Station. http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/nasa-shuttle-program.html
 
Without exception “The NASA Letter Writers” four panelists and its moderator expressed skepticism and dismay in their panel presentations over the consensus theory of anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming.
 
Walter Cunningham has been a skeptic and advocate of long standing against “warmists” who theorize that Global Warming is caused by man’s dependency on fossil fuels, as documented through his writing and speaking engagements.  During Cunningham’s presentation he called the “Science is Settled” consensus theory as nothing more than “alarmist hypocrisy”.  
 
Cunningham’s “One Astronaut’s Views” are set forth in a pamphlet written by Cunningham and published by The Heartland Institute in 2010, “Global Warming: Facts versus Faith”.  Stated by Cunningham:   
 
“The current debate is not unlike Galileo’s historic disagreement with the Catholic Church, or the battle over evolution versus creationism.  In all three cases, facts are pitted against faith and science against religion.  The conflict over global warming has deteriorated into a religious war between true believers in AGW and non-believers, the so-called “skeptics”.  http://www.waltercunningham.com/factsfaith.pdf
 
Former astronaut Harrison Schmidt offered these astute remarks in his presentation relative to how the Global Warming issue has been hi-jacked from being science-based to consensus-theory based:  After WW II education was taken over by unions and the political Left; the media ceased to be a form of continuing education but instead a mouthpiece of the Left; and Scientific Society publications were captured by the Left with research based on what government wanted to hear and not on science.  
 
Without question:
 
All five former NASA employees featured on Heartland’s “The NASA Letter Writers” iccc7 panel were pioneers in this nation’s now defunct space program.  
 
All five remain heroes as former employees of NASA before this nation lost its ambition and curiosity for space exploration.  
 
All five remain dismayed and eager to get the word out about the failure of NASA, specifically the Goodard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all scientific date available on climate change.

 

Part 1:  Misguided Energy Symposium linking Global Warming to National Security rings hollow among Heartland’s ICCC7 featured guest speakers  

Early in May my IL Representative Karen May (D-58) circulated an e-mail invitation to attend a June 2nd Chicago North Shore Energy Symposium along with the Veteran Outreach Program of the Truman National Security Project in Highland Park to commemorate World Environment Day.

What captured my attention were the topics to be discussion at the event, specifically: 1) how oil dependence and climate change are threatening our country, endangering our troops and the security of America at large and 2) and why a commitment to clean (green) energy initiative at the local, state, and federal level is vital to the future of American jobs.

Knowing that “warmists” would be reading my account of the already held June 2nd symposium, not hesitating to eviscerate me while defending Karen May, I thought it appropriate to include early on in my blog piece three of eighteen “Food for Thought” argument facts about Global Warming/Climate Change based on hard scientific facts, as compiled by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director at The Heartland Institute.

1.  Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.  Plants need it to live and thrive.  Humans exhale CO2 in breathing.

2.  Man contributes only slightly more than 3% of CO2.  Water vapor comes in first at over 90%

3.  In the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 AD) temperatures were 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit above those of today.  At the time of the Norse settlement, Greenland was really Green.

All eighteen of Jay Lehr’s argument points can be read at my previous column HERE.

Representative Karen May, not unlike many legislators and government officials presently serving at the country, state, and federal level — and also their like-minded constituents — unconditionally accepts the “warmist” theory about Global Warming, for it conforms to the political ideology and agenda of her political party that the EPA was justified in declaring CO2 a pollutant in April of 2009.    

It is unfortunate (and a national economic and job killer) for Democratic Representative May and others of her ilk to pronounce that the science of global warming is settled with no room for debate.

As a firm believer in the “consensus” theory of Global Warming it was to be expected, but still unsettling, that Rep. May should offer her constituents a one-sided Energy Symposium about the urgent need for this nation (and Illinois) to wean itself from oil and to instead utilize green energy alternatives for the sake of this nation’s national security.

From my point of view blaming CO2 for Global Warming is like blaming a hangnail for obesity. 

This year’s Heartland-sponored Seventh International Conference of Climate Change (ICCC7) from May 21 – 31 armed me with new and additional ammunition to use when encountering those who believe man-made or anthrogenic global warming exists.  Heartland right here in Chicago is a recognized world leader in exposing global warming for the hoax that it is. 

I was privileged to listen to 60 noted scientists, physicists, meteorologists, and policy experts from across the globe speak about climate change, not as a “consensus,” but as a flawed theory devoid of hard scientific facts to lend credence to believers of anthrogenic (man-made) global warming.  Videos of all 60 speakers at the ICCC7 can be found at this link.  climate conferences.heartland.org/iccc7/  It is well worth checking out.

Throughout my attendance at the  May ICCC7 conference Karen May’s June 2nd symposium never left my mind.  In passing I informed several of the guest speakers about my IL state representative’s symposium that linked Global Warming to Energy Security.  All were appalled by what they heard. 

Sensing a receptive ear, I spoke in more detail to Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D  about May’s symposium, engaging in conversation with Dr. Michaels — a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute — while he was promoting the sale of his book, Climate Coup:  Global Warming’s Invasion Of Our Government and Our Lives. 

(Michaels’ book features a series of authors who detail the width and depth of the impact global warming alarmism is having on their area of expertise.)

Without hesitation, Dr. Michaels turned to chapter four in his book to show me Ivan Eland’s chapter contribution which explored the national security/global warming issue.  It didn’t take me long to find information telling me that Ivan Eland is a recognized expert on national security issues

Ivan Eland offers this conclusion in his Chapter 4 contribution Dr. Michael’s book: “Global Warming, Environmental Threats, and U.S. Security:  Recycling the Domino Theory:

“Research shows that warming-induced resource scarcity is unlikely to cause much interstate conflict and is even suspect in generating the lesser threat of of interstate conflict.  Thus, any ill effects from warming in the developing world could possibly be a humanitarian issue but not a crisis for U.S. security.” 

Another ICCC7 speaker and author, Steve Goreham , Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America — a non-political association of scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens dedicated to educating Americans about the realities of climate change science and the economics of renewable energy — took an immediate interest in my Karen May misguided symposium tale and  offered to attend Karen May’s June 2nd event. 

Mr. Goreham’s book, Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic, has as its message that Global warming is due to natural cycles of Earth–not man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, misguided climate policies have no impact on climate change, but negatively impacting American citizens and business. 

Part 2: Operation Freedom message.  Climate change as a threat to national security, receives unconditional acceptance from the D of D, State Department, NIC and the CIA.         

Armed with facts and with prepared handouts to distribute to symposium attendees, I arrived early, as did Steve Goreham.  Sitting in the front row we used our time to read through the distributed event literature.

We were to learn that one of the two featured speakers was Lauren Wolfe, head of “Operation Free”, a Truman National Security Project which functioned as its campaign arm.

The handout described Operation Free, located in Washington, D.C., as a nationwide coalition of veterans, recognizing that climate change and oil dependence pose serious threats to our national security, believe it is their duty to protect America by advocating for clean, domestic energy  production at all levels of government.  

Its three goals:  1) Reduce America’s Oil Dependence; 2) Fight Climate Disruption so climate change doesn’t destabilize weak states; and 3) Make the US More Competitive through leading in the creation of green energy jobs.  

The Department of Defense, the State Department, the National Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency have all officially ascribed to the Operation Free message, “Secure America with Clean Energy.”

According to General Anthony Zinni, Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Central command, “We will pay for this one way or another.  We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today. . . we will pay the price later in military terms.  And that will involve human lives.” 

As Steve Goreham and I listened to the opening remarks of IL 58th District representative, Karen May, we were told facts that contradicted those that we already knew to be true.  

With an aura of disbelief and a certain amount of discomfort we heard Karen May state:

1.  Renewable energy here in Illinois will save jobs, protect the environment, and save the planet, as such the development of green energy sources must be a partisan effort.   Wind jobs and solar jobs come at an enormous cost to American taxpayers.  Obama spent $90 billion of his stimulus package on green energy projects, including development of electric vehicles, yet by the end of 2011, just 16,100 people labored in new jobs in the so-called green industry.

2.  Mandated is that 25% of Illinois’ energy must come from wind, solar and bio fuels, etc., by
2025.  As Karen admitted, “We have a long way to go.  It stands now at 7%.”

3.  IL has robust wind to support wind turbines.  Farmers also profit through the rental of land on which wind turbines are constructed. Farmers also enjoy the income from growing corn used to produce the ethanol added to the gasoline sold in Illinois.  Article link:  According to physicist John Droz, Jr., “Wind and solar produce a trickle of electricity at a vast cost to the consumer.  They don’t
even cut carbon emissions; they literally are a waste of space.” 

4.  Renewable energy in Illinois also calls for solar power. So said Karen May, “If Germany can go solar, so can Illinois.”  Article link:  In March of this year Germany cut subsidies to its floundering solar industry, Britain and Italy have made similar moves, and Spain has abandoned its subsidies altogether.   

5.  There is a plan to put charging stations at tollway oasis stops so people can do fast charges with their electric cars.  

6.  Karen May supports electric cars and would have bought one if one had been available at the time she wished to purchase an electric car..  Instead, Ms. May bought a hybrid.  Article link:  The GM Chevrolet Volt Electric Car is headed for Solyndra heaven. Only 7,671 Volts sold last year, with an inventory of unsold 6,300 cars. 

7.  Karen May advocated mass transportation to cut down on global warming carbon emissions.  Article link:  Noted geologist, Leighton Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is now convinced that emissions are good for the Earth and don’t cause global warming. 

When it was Lauren Wolfe’s time to speak she defended the Department of Defense and other security agencies as organizations not known to be crazy, and applauded them for their rational and dedicated approach in enacting policies that were in keeping with securing American through promoting green energy policies. 

Lauren’s unconditional defense seemed to stem from comments made by Steve Goreham and myself, stirring up the pot, when we found it impossible to sit silently through Karen May’s prior misguided and unscientific presentation.

Ms. Wolfe went on to explain that the U.S. uses 22% of the world’s oil, that we are running out of oil, and that the ever dwindling supply of oil will become even more costly.  Thus the need to start relying on alternative forms of energy sources so we don’t have to depend on nasty countries for our oil supply or fear our money is going straight into the hands of terrorists. 

To which Steve Goreham retorted how this nation has a huge supply of oil if only drilling would be allowed.  Article link:  As this nation has billions of barrels of untapped U.S. oil, why is our very own government holding us hostage, forcing our Country to be addicted to the Oil from the Middle East and Venezuela. 

In discussing fracking, Lauren Wolfe called it a new technology and one whose feasibility and safety were still in question. 

Once again Steve Goreham came to the rescue and clarified fracking as a technology that has been around for many years, how it  is safe, and that the process does NOT result in water pollution. On the contrary, through fracking more natural gas has been found which has resulted in greatly lowering
the price of gas.  Article link:  The process of fracking to capture oil and gas has been used since the 1940s.  Hydraulic fracturing seems to have become a “Weapon of Fear”, despite it being environmentally friendly.  

My question to Lauren Wolfe when speaking about the Navy’s development of bio-fuels for its ships and submarines as the military seeks to reduce the amount of fuel (oil) used in the next 20 years, “Why the need for bio-fuels when nuclear power has been used to power ships and submarines since the time of Admiral Rickover in the 50’s and 60’s?”   Article link:  China would like to have 100 more reactors operating by 2020. 

Lauren countered by noting how important it was for the U.S. and the military to lead the way in developing technology in the clean energy sector, as public entities, not being proactive, needed government assistance in order to make it profitable to invest.  Article link:  Illinois DCEO reveals that under Section 1603 of the federal stimulus bill the federal government is offering developers in IL about $8 million for each wind job reported.  

Given that “Operation Free” is populated by a nationwide coalition of veterans, it came as no surprise when Lauren Wolfe cited the number of vets employed in the wind industry as 70% of its workforce.  Article link:  The Energy Department, through Gemini Energy Service’s workforce development training program, prepares military veterans for careers as wind industry technicians.  

Following Lauren Wolfe’s comments Brandon Bodom spoke as a U.S. Army Veteran from Chicago and as a member of “Operation Free.”   The tenor of Bodom’s remarks were less confrontational.  Brandon was not hesitant to admit that this nation could never become totally oil independent.

Having recently returned from a 12-month deployment to Kandahar, Afghanistan, Brandon’s explained why sources other than oil for energy were needed in  Afghanistan:  Fuel interruptions happened because of planted roadside ID’s hitting convoys carrying fuel to where it was needed.  These interruptions endangered our troops and resulted in endangering, maiming and killing of our troops. 

One innovative idea described by vet Brandon Bodom was a solar blankets developed for marines to be used to power batteries for radio, etc..  The solar blanket eliminates the need to carry a supply of heavy batteries in backpacks, making it possible to pack more food for a longer mission.

As for the use of solar and wind in the U.S. on a mass scale, Steve Goreham reminded Brandon Bodom that where there is no electrical grid, like in Afghanistan, it makes sense, but not in the U.S. where an electrical grid exists.

Brandon was definitely misinformed when he applauded CA as a role model for green energy, a state that is even in worst financial shape than Illinois.

A limited number of a comprehensive 2011 report, From Barracks to the Battlefield:  Clean Energy Innovation and America’s Armed Forces  (a Pew Project dealing with National Security, Energy and Climate and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts) were available for those in attendance by a representative of the Pew Project. 

Both Steve Goreham and I managed to obtain a copy of the report which can be read in its
entirety at this link:  http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Report/DoD-Report_FINAL.pdf

The report’s  propose is to bring together the economic, scientific and military communities to discuss the links between American energy decisions and national security. 

My concerns are many, but among them are: 1) how all branches of our military are using allocated money better spent of ships, planes, equipment, etc., to instead fund green energy projects and 2) how at the federal and state level officials and legislators (and the Obama administration) have been duped into believing that CO2 emissions cause Global Warming and that renewable (green) energy sources are capable of stepping up to the plate to fill any future void. 

In conclusion, some “Food for Thought”:

This nation will need more 25% more energy in future years.  Alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and bio fuels will not be sufficient to meet the demands here in Illinois or nationwide.  Article link:  “EPA projects world energy use to increase 53% by 2035”   

Government subsidies won’t forever, then what?   Article link:  Subsidies are already on the way out in Europe as unaffordable.  Meanwhile, a stalled effort to renew federal tax credits for the wind power industry is making it hard to keep employees on the payroll and plan for expansion. 

There has been no global warming since 1998, man made or otherwise.  Article link:  James Delingpole questions how the gravy train funding will keep going if an increasingly skeptical populace begins to question the “science” is “settled” mantra by the”warmists.”      

Most importantly, the unified and concerted effort and premise of “Secure America with Clean Energy” by achieving oil independence through green alternatives is a fool’s mission being done at a great cost to taxpayers, as hard science, unlike “consensus”, proves that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.  Article link: The finding of four U.S. renowned experts published in the International Journal of Climatology of
the Royal Meteorological Society. 

Part 1:  Misguided Energy Symposium linking Global Warming to National Security rings hollow among Heartland’s ICCC7 featured guest speakers  

Early in May my IL Representative Karen May (D-58) circulated an e-mail invitation to attend a June 2nd Chicago North Shore Energy Symposium along with the Veteran Outreach Program of the Truman National Security Project in Highland Park to commemorate World Environment Day.

What captured my attention were the topics to be discussion at the event, specifically: 1) how oil dependence and climate change are threatening our country, endangering our troops and the security of America at large and 2) and why a commitment to clean (green) energy initiative at the local, state, and federal level is vital to the future of American jobs.

Knowing that “warmists” would be reading my account of the already held June 2nd symposium, not hesitating to eviscerate me while defending Karen May, I thought it appropriate to include early on in my blog piece three of eighteen “Food for Thought” argument facts about Global Warming/Climate Change based on hard scientific facts, as compiled by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director at The Heartland Institute.

1.  Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.  Plants need it to live and thrive.  Humans exhale CO2 in breathing.

2.  Man contributes only slightly more than 3% of CO2.  Water vapor comes in first at over 90%

3.  In the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 AD) temperatures were 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit above those of today.  At the time of the Norse settlement, Greenland was really Green.

All eighteen of Jay Lehr’s argument points can be read at my previous column HERE.

Representative Karen May, not unlike many legislators and government officials presently serving at the country, state, and federal level — and also their like-minded constituents — unconditionally accepts the “warmist” theory about Global Warming, for it conforms to the political ideology and agenda of her political party that the EPA was justified in declaring CO2 a pollutant in April of 2009.    

It is unfortunate (and a national economic and job killer) for Democratic Representative May and others of her ilk to pronounce that the science of global warming is settled with no room for debate.

As a firm believer in the “consensus” theory of Global Warming it was to be expected, but still unsettling, that Rep. May should offer her constituents a one-sided Energy Symposium about the urgent need for this nation (and Illinois) to wean itself from oil and to instead utilize green energy alternatives for the sake of this nation’s national security.

From my point of view blaming CO2 for Global Warming is like blaming a hangnail for obesity. 

This year’s Heartland-sponored Seventh International Conference of Climate Change (ICCC7) from May 21 – 31 armed me with new and additional ammunition to use when encountering those who believe man-made or anthrogenic global warming exists.  Heartland right here in Chicago is a recognized world leader in exposing global warming for the hoax that it is. 

I was privileged to listen to 60 noted scientists, physicists, meteorologists, and policy experts from across the globe speak about climate change, not as a “consensus,” but as a flawed theory devoid of hard scientific facts to lend credence to believers of anthrogenic (man-made) global warming.  Videos of all 60 speakers at the ICCC7 can be found at this link.  climate conferences.heartland.org/iccc7/  It is well worth checking out.

Throughout my attendance at the  May ICCC7 conference Karen May’s June 2nd symposium never left my mind.  In passing I informed several of the guest speakers about my IL state representative’s symposium that linked Global Warming to Energy Security.  All were appalled by what they heard. 

Sensing a receptive ear, I spoke in more detail to Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D  about May’s symposium, engaging in conversation with Dr. Michaels — a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute — while he was promoting the sale of his book, Climate Coup:  Global Warming’s Invasion Of Our Government and Our Lives. 

(Michaels’ book features a series of authors who detail the width and depth of the impact global warming alarmism is having on their area of expertise.)

Without hesitation, Dr. Michaels turned to chapter four in his book to show me Ivan Eland’s chapter contribution which explored the national security/global warming issue.  It didn’t take me long to find information telling me that Ivan Eland is a recognized expert on national security issues

Ivan Eland offers this conclusion in his Chapter 4 contribution Dr. Michael’s book: “Global Warming, Environmental Threats, and U.S. Security:  Recycling the Domino Theory:

“Research shows that warming-induced resource scarcity is unlikely to cause much interstate conflict and is even suspect in generating the lesser threat of of interstate conflict.  Thus, any ill effects from warming in the developing world could possibly be a humanitarian issue but not a crisis for U.S. security.” 

Another ICCC7 speaker and author, Steve Goreham , Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America — a non-political association of scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens dedicated to educating Americans about the realities of climate change science and the economics of renewable energy — took an immediate interest in my Karen May misguided symposium tale and  offered to attend Karen May’s June 2nd event. 

Mr. Goreham’s book, Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic, has as its message that Global warming is due to natural cycles of Earth–not man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, misguided climate policies have no impact on climate change, but negatively impacting American citizens and business.