No One Is Born Gay

If there were reputable scientific evidence that some people were born homosexual, I would have no problem accepting this. After all, my theology tells me that as human beings, we are all created in God’s image and yet we are a fallen race, and so all of us carry aspects of that fallen nature to the core of our being, and that could theoretically include homosexuality.

But the fact is that there is simply no reputable scientific evidence that anyone is born gay. As stated by gay activist and history professor John D’Emilio:

“‘Born gay’ is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”

In other words, because the “born gay” idea has proved so useful, the fact that there’s virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It’s an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies.

Born "Gay"? Columbia Professor and homosexual historian John D'Emilio

As noted years ago by gay scientist Simon LeVay, “There [was] a survey in The New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly.”

And so, the argument goes, “If I’m born this way, how can my attractions be wrong? And if I’m born this way, how can you expect me to change?”

Of course, even if no one is born gay, that doesn’t mean that homosexual attractions are not deeply rooted. In most cases, those feelings are very deeply rooted to the point that many gay men and women truly believe they were born gay.

And even if no one is born gay, that doesn’t mean that homosexual attractions are easily changed. In most cases, they are not.

But why base a so-called civil-rights movement on lies? Why not tell the truth?

One of the most gay-friendly professional organizations in our country is the American Psychological Association, and yet even the APA states that, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.”

Similarly, in England, the pro-gay Royal College of Psychiatrists recently backtracked on an earlier statement that homosexuality was biologically determined, now saying that “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors.” And while they stated clearly their belief that homosexuality was not a mental disorder and that it should be accepted, they added, “It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.”

That’s why psychiatrist Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former chairperson of the Task Force on Religion and Mental Health said in 2005, “Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the ‘gay gene’” (in theJournal of American Physicians and Surgeons).

Why then do we constantly hear about people being born gay? First, it has worked wonders for gay activism; second, many gays and lesbians believe it to be true, since as far back as they can remember, they felt that they were different.

But political expediency and personal feelings do not change the facts, and those facts remain the same: There is no clear scientific evidence that anyone is born gay

According to lesbian researcher Lisa Diamond, “The queer community has been obsessed with cultivating the idea that we all have fixed sexual identities. We’ve crafted terrific narratives and political platforms based on the notions that all gays are ‘born that way.’ But what if sexuality is more complex? What if biology actually intersects with environment, time, culture and context? Could we possibly be more fluid than we’ve supposed?”

Camille Paglia, a social critic, academic, feminist and lesbian, was even more blunt, famously stating in her book Vamps and Tramps, “Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. … No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous … homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”

Paglia also asked, “Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible.”

Remarkably, when a school chaplain in Tasmania, Australia, posted Paglia’s opinion on social media, there was an outcry against him, causing him to issue a public apology: “I’ve made a mistake and learnt from it. I’m deeply sorry for any offence I’ve caused. I was very careless in posting that image for discussion. I will work with my employers to ensure there is no repeat.”

Despite this apology, he was still fired—and the organization he worked for was Christian! That is how toxic today’s climate has become, and yet this chaplain simply posted the accurate reflections of a lesbian academic. How could this be considered hateful or bigoted?

Again, this does not mean that same-sex attractions and desires are not deeply roo999ted in some people’s lives, nor does it mean that they chose to be gay. (You can choose to act on your attractions but that doesn’t mean you chose to have the attractions.)

It simply means that one of the major gay-activist talking points, one that has even infiltrated parts of the church, is based on lies, not truth.

It’s time we speak the truth in love. Lies never help anyone in the long run.

dr_michael_brown_thumbnail-233x300

Dr. Michael Brown

ABOUT DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Michael Brown is author of Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

EDITORS NOTE: This column by Dr. Michael Brown is reprinted from his “Line of Fire” column at Charisma News.

A Different Opinion on Smart Meter “Phobia”

Recently someone sent me James Tracy’s blog on an editorial written by the Palm Beach PostSmart Media Phobia Sad, But Don’t Cut Power” regarding FP&L’s smart meters. The Palm Beach Post circulation covers the area for which FP&L maintains its headquarters. Essentially the editors feel that the Internet is a blessing and a curse because people, other than them, don’t know how to interpret data and they are reading things other than the mainstream media and are being “misinformed”. We apparently repeat these misunderstandings until they sound like “fact”.

The editorial goes on to repeat industry propaganda about how one can be continually exposed to smart meters for 375 years and that would equate to a 15-minute cell phone call. Dr. Tracy, in his blog post, details all the science he has previously provided FP&L that refutes such nonsense. I decided to call out the Palm Beach Post on other false information in their Op-Ed. Most likely they won’t print it, but luckily we have alternative media to by-pass their censorship power.

My response sent to the Palm Beach Post editorial was as follows.

Editors of the Palm Beach Post:

I am the lead petitioner in the action against the Florida Power & Light (FP&L) smart meter opt out fees currently before the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). I read your editorial published September 4, 2014 and shook my head, as it is nothing but another corporate propaganda piece that spreads misinformation.

First, I take exception to the insinuation that I suffer from “lack of training to parse data”. I am a CPA and trained auditor. I know how to research, source and interpret data. I also have a background in the regulatory process having worked 11 years for a telephone company. I have handled complicated transactions such as the AT&T divestiture to the planning and implementation of Sarbanes – Oxley regulations for a multi-billion dollar company. I have spent about 10 hours per day, 5 days a week for two years reading every governmental and industry report on the smart grid and smart meters. My computer is now overloaded with downloads.

Second, it is not a fact that “the vast majority of FP&L’s approximately 4.6 million customers have “adopted the new technology without a second thought”. The truth is the vast majorities don’t even know they have a smart meter or what it does differently. But what is true is that the claims of the smart meter giving people information to help manage their energy are a lie, as the current information provided to customers is useless. This can be supported by FP&L’s disclosure that the vast majority of customers have yet to even access their silly Energy Dashboard. But I am sure the editors of this paper do so every day, correct?

Third, the biggest lie in your is this statement “The facts are clear: Smart meters lower everyone’s utility bills by reducing the need for trucks, fuel, and meter readers. They reduce the length and extent of power outages. They pose no credible threat to health.”

Smart meters do not reduce the length and extent of power outages – smart technologies (sensors on equipment like transformers and substations and smart switches on feeders) do provide this benefit.

Regarding your statements of “credible threat to health”, where have we heard that phrase before? Ah, yes, the tobacco industry used that phrase for decades quite successfully, didn’t they? Now let’s look at the credibility of FP&L’s lead consultant on smart meter health, Dr. Peter Valberg. He claims that there is no “credible” science that shows RF harm. Your readers should know that he also testified on behalf of Phillip Morris in their light cigarettes deceptive marketing case. His testimony essentially stated that light cigarettes were just not being smoked properly, and also that the tobacco studies performed by Philip Morris were consistent” with what was known to the outside scientific community. No deception, right? How “credible” is this guy? Your readers can decide but they should also do an internet search on the BioInitiative Report before they make their decision.

But most importantly, smart meters have not lowered your bills – not one penny – they have actually increased them. Let me count the ways:

First, the old meters had a net book value (NBV) of $75 million and an estimated useful life of approximately 36 years. FP&L wrote off $101 million (includes cost of removal) when they threw the perfectly operational old meters in the garbage. The annual depreciation charges for these meters were around $7 million per year ($249 Million Gross value/36 yrs). The approximate annual return on investment FP&L received on the NBV of $75 million, using 9.48% pre-tax cost of capital was $7 million.

Contrast that to now. The smart meter project capital is $645 million with an estimated useful life of 20 years (and if you believe the 20 yr life, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you). This equates to depreciation charges of about $32 million per year ($645M/20yrs). The return on investment FP&L will earn on this new smart meter capital will be about $61 million per year ($645M at 9.48%), decreasing by about $3 million each year to reflect the lower NBV from depreciation.

Second, FP&L current rates are based on a 2013 test year and the 2012 rate case settlement agreement keeps the rates the same until at least 2017. The 2013 test year reflects an overall net Operations & Maintenance (O&M) cost of $3.4 million for the smart meter project. (Funny, in 2009 they estimated that the year 2013 would produce a net O&M savings of $20 million. I guess the project is overrunning its budget.) FP&L recently testified that once the project was completed in 2013 there would be about $40 million annual net savings in O&M.

When rate case settlements are made they are made for a period of time. Each party looks at that period of time to determine if anything needs to be considered and factored in before the final settlement is agreed to and finalized. FP&L raised its hand high, saying, look over here, I have new plants coming on line in these outer years and we need to raise rates to recover our investment and such was granted. But did FP&L raise their hand or did the FPSC insist that the smart meter savings of $40 million, which would start to be realized during that period, also be accounted for? No. FP&L was not required to reduce the rates in the outer years to reflect the savings.

Third, lets not forget to count all the new costs that are being incurred that did not exist with those old analog meters. Now you have communication costs to send the data wirelessly back to FP&L, cyber-security costs, software license and maintenance fees, data storage costs, big data consultants, settlements on fires and property damage, more equipment to be damaged in storms and the list goes on.

So Palm Beach Editorial Board, please disclose to your readers your facts to support your claim that smart meters have lowered our utility bills. The miscellaneous tariffs for all these activities – service connects/disconnects, reconnects for non-payment – are EXACTLY the same as they were when FP&L didn’t have smart meters. FP&L’s 2013 test year also included significant manual meter-reading costs as they still had over 800 thousand meters left to install in their assumptions and those costs are still baked into our current rates.

Your readers can decide for themselves, if FP&L, who made NO disclosure in their rate case settlement agreement that they planned to file these smart meter opt out tariffs (despite smart meters being an issue in the rate case), is deserving of an additional $2 million a year in revenue from these customers when they are keeping the $40 million in savings for three years and overcharging smart meter customers for truck rolls they are no longer performing. Is FP&L violating the rate case settlement agreement by trying to change rates for services already provided at the date of that agreement?

From my vantage point – if they are deserving of the $2 million in additional revenue because the project is over and we need to recognize a new ‘cost of service” – then it is only fair to re-price all activities affected by this fact and reduce the rates for all customers by $40-45 million.

There is no financial payback for me as I have sunk tens of thousand of dollars into this effort and countless unpaid hours of time. I do so for two reasons – 1) the many “Friedman’s out there who have no voice and are being harmed by this product and 2) to expose the illegal coordination and fraud/deception that took place between FP&L and FPSC as it pertains to this project.

The documented audit trail of deception is as long as the distance from my house in Venice to Tallahassee. Quite frankly, the conduct of our FPSC that I discovered on this journey is more disturbing than FP&L’s. I will take that item up with our state legislators when they return to Tallahassee for the next session.

An Economist’s Bad Climate Advice

If I need my car repaired, I do not take it to a dentist. If I am seeking advice about the climate I check out what climatologists and meteorologists are saying, at least those who have not sold their souls to the global warming/climate change hoax.

On September 3rd the Wall Street Journal published a commentary by Edward P. Lazear titled “The Climate Change Agenda Needs to Adapt to Reality: Limiting carbon emissions won’t work. Better to begin adjusting to a warming world.”

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!  It’s cooling, not warming.

Apparently Mr. Lazear is unaware that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for seventeen years. A visit to ClimateDepot.com or a subscription to the Heartland Institute’s monthly Climate & Environmental News or a copy of its policy studies, “Climate Change Reconsidered”, would help him understand why he’s wrong. Check out www.climatechangedispatch.com as well for the latest commentaries.

Perhaps his error should be forgiven because Mr. Lazear is an economist. He was the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors (2006-09) and head of the White House Committee on the Economics of Climate Change (2007-08). Presently he is a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.

He’s not a fool, but like a lot of academics who lack a background in science, he has been fooled by the legion of global warming/climate change charlatans from Al Gore through the ranks of organizations such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that depend on maintaining the hoax.

Mr. Lazear has fallen for the greatest lie ever; the assertion that greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are warming the Earth. The hoaxers are calling the past seventeen years “a pause” in warming, but it is actually an indicator that the Earth is on the cusp of the next ice age. The period in between ice ages is calculated at 11,500 years and we are at the end of the current interglacial period.

“The Obama administration is instituting a variety of far-reaching policies to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. Are any of these capable of making a difference”, asked Mr. Lazear. “Simple arithmetic suggests not.” Up to this point I was very pleased with his conclusion, but then he wrote “Given this reality, we would be wise to consider strategies that complement and may be more effective than mitigation—namely, adaptation.”

Humans have been adapting to the climate—the weather—since they emerged as homo sapiens about 195,000 years ago.

What Mr. Lazear wants the U.S, to do is limit “carbon emissions” but admits that “The economics also work against a major transformation in the technology of producing power, either mobile or stationary. Coal is cheap. Natural gas is becoming even cheaper.”

The primary flaw in his commentary is simply that more carbon dioxide is a good thing. As the primary gas utilized by all vegetation, more means greater crop yields and healthier forests. What carbon dioxide doesn’t do is “trap” heat long enough to lower the Earth’s temperature. It represents a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.

The Earth is not a greenhouse with a glass roof. The amount of heat in the atmosphere is totally dependent on the amount of heat the Sun produces. In its current cycle, it is producing less.

“Carbon math,” wrote Mr. Lazear, “makes clear that without major effort and a good bit of luck, we are unlikely to control the growth of emissions enough to meet the standards that many climate scientists suggest are necessary.” Those scientists are usually on college or university faculties where securing federal and other grants to study a warming that is not occurring leads to urging limits on carbon dioxide. Others are just huge liars who, like Al Gore, have been making predictions of warming that have not and are not coming true.

There’s another reason why there will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It involves two of the most swiftly developing nations in the world, China and India, both of whom are building coal-fired plants to generate electricity as fast as they can. This is happening while the Environmental Protection Agency has been engaged in an all-out war on coal that has closed several hundred U.S. plants. If an especially cold winter occurs, the demand for electricity to warm homes and other facilities may overload a system that has been diminished in scope.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the driving force behind the global warming hoax. It is holding a climate change summit on September 23. Guess who won’t be attending? Chinese president Xi Jinping, India’s prime minister, Narenda Modi, and for good measure, Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel. Others whose leaders will not be attending include Canada, Japan, and Russia.

In typical fashion, always predicting climate conditions decades from now, the United Nations, according to a report in The Guardian, “is warning of floods, storms and searing heat from Arizona to Zambia within four decades, as part of a series of imagined weather forecasts” to publicize the climate summit.

All of the forecasts made by a legion of climate charlatans in the 1980s and 1990s turned out to be WRONG.

You cannot trust the UN’s World Meteorological Organization which like the IPCC is just part of a vast matrix of groups that have been so severely corrupted by the global warming/climate change hoax that one must exercise caution when hearing its forecasts. If they are for anything beyond two weeks hence, you would be wise to be dubious.

Mr. Lazear is just one of many, often with distinguished careers in other fields than meteorology or climatology, who have bought into the hoax and who declaim the need to reduce carbon dioxide. He’s wrong. The others are wrong.

And you need to educate yourself to avoid being afflicted by various government policies intended to advance the hoax. To start with, do not vote for any politician who talks of global warming/climate change or uses the term “sustainability.”

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Shaking, Quaking, and Freezing

Have you noticed how much earthquake and volcanic activity has been occurring lately?

There was a major earthquake in Napa, California on Sunday, August 24th as well as considerable volcanic activity from Iceland to Papua, New Guinea. August was also a month that set records for colder U.S. temperatures.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there were some 1,097 “low max” temperature records broken in the U.S. between August 1 and August 23, meaning that the maximum temperature during that time period was the lowest it has ever been. NOAA reported that summer across much of the U.S. has been colder than normal.

Most of us, after decades of global warming predictions that became more and more absurd, rising sea levels drowning Manhattan and Miami, an upsurge in hurricanes, forest fires, and every other calamity, have concluded that none of these things have happened in the volume or intensity predicted. In the 70s we were told the Earth would get colder. In the 80’s and 90’s we were told it would get warmer.

A new book is advising us to prepare for a serious cold spell that is not only going to arrive in twenty to thirty years, but will likely stay around to become the next ice age. This time, though, the prediction is based on well-established climate cycles and the behavior of the Sun that was known as far back as Galileo’s day.

The new “normal” is colder weather and this is because the Sun’s sunspot activity has been in a cyclical decline since about 1998, producing the latest cooling cycle for the Earth.

John Casey

John Casey, author, lecturer and rocket scientist.

In combination with the earthquakes and volcanic activity, says John L. Casey’s new book, “Dark Winter: How the Sun is Causing a 30-Year Cold Spell” ($24.95, Humanix Books, Boca Raton, FL) what we’re really looking at is a repeat of the Dalton Minimum, a solar sunspot minimum that occurred between 1793 and 1830. His earlier book, “Cold Sun” addressed this cyclical phenomenon.

Casey asks “Will we also experience volcanic activity that will add to the solar cooling?” and the answer, given the fifty active volcanoes around the world, is that “We should expect to deal with multiple geological disasters, including volcanoes and earthquakes, during the next solar hibernation.” We have in fact already entered that “hibernation.”

Casey is the president of the Space and Science Research Corporation. It specializes in independent research regarding the coming decades of cold weather. For thirty-five years Casey has been active in science and high tech industries. He has been a national space policy advisor to the White House and Congress, and a former space shuttle engineer, consultant to NASA headquarters.

Casey has formulated a “Bicentennial Cycle of 206 years correlated with near 100 percent accuracy to every major cold-temperature period of the past 1,200 years.” His Theory of “Relational Cycles of Solar Activity” accounts for its effects and those of other solar cycles.

He is not the first scientist to recognize the relationship of diminished sunspot activity and cooling cycles, but he is the first to have synthesized the earlier work of others who made comparable observations. His Relational Cycles theory, however, is more specific than preceding ones, pegging the arrival of significant global cold climate to begin as early as 2024 or as late as 2036. “My math says 2031” says Casey.

Earth Ice AgeCasey’s book is a prediction of a coming ice age that will have devastating effects for all life on Earth, but my readers know I have been writing about this for several years based on Robert W. Felix’s book, “Not By Fire, But By Ice” ($15.95, Sugarhouse Publishing, Bellevue, WA). I have frequently referenced his website http://iceagenow.info, for its daily updates on cold weather events, records established and broken, and reports on volcanic and earthquake activity around the world.

Before I proceed, the reader should contemplate the fact that not one single child entering or returning to school this year has ever lived in a period of “global warming.” The cooling cycle began around 1997.

You do not need to be a meteorologist to know nothing humans do affects or alters the weather. The claim that “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are making the Earth warmer is false.

We have been experiencing this as the Earth has cooled, along with increased volcanic activity and earthquakes, and yet on September 23rd the United Nations will hold a “Climate Change Summit” that will be attended by more than a hundred of the world’s presidents and prime ministers. They will continue the greatest international scientific fraud ever perpetrated.

Despite the cooling cycle that is occurring and which will grow in intensity, the U.S. government has devoted billions to global warming research and, as Casey notes, “not one research dollar has been dedicated to the science and planning needed for the United Sates to be prepared for the only climate change that we can expect—a long and potentially dangerous cold climate!”

The U.S. is not taking the steps necessary for the cold that is coming. It has not only failed to encourage the use of our multi-generational reserves of coal, the Obama administration has declared “war” on it, putting several hundred plants out of business, reducing the amount of electricity the nation needs now and will require. Power plants and refineries cannot be built overnight and the lack of them will severely impact our lives and the economy.

AA - Obama Says Planet is Warming

Despite thousands of miles of pipelines that safely distribute oil and natural gas, Obama has refused to permit a new one, Keystone XL, for oil to be shipped to gulf state refineries from Canada. Railroad cars needed to transport food crops in a timely manner are being diverted to transport oil. No new nuclear plants are being built on a scale that will be needed. The “grid” that distributes electricity nationwide is in vital need of repair and expansion.

Cold weather will reduce the amount of crops needed to feed the nation’s human population and the stocks of cattle, pigs, sheep, and chickens upon which we depend. This will happen here and worldwide. Famine will be rampant. In countless ways ours and worldwide societies that depend on all manner of technology will be impacted.

Nations and people will fail to prepare for what is coming because (1) they have been deceived by the global warming hoax and (2) we will be leaving behind one of the longest climate cycles other than an ice age, the interglacial warm period. Casey notes that “For the past 11,000 years, we have been living in one of these rare interglacial periods, called the Holocene warm period.”

What we call civilization is the result of the Holocene warm period and, without it, civilization and a global population nearing or surpassing eight billion will be largely decimated as the next, entirely predictable, ice age occurs.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

‘The Chinafication of America’

New York Times: ‘U.S. seeking climate deal that would skirt Senate’: ‘Under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions…American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.’

Morano: ‘Obama is taking a page from China’s government and is seeking to bypass democracy’s ‘very detrimental’ hurdles and just impose a new UN treaty on Americans’ By:  – Climate Depot

August 27, 2014 12:19 PM

Marc Morano statement on Obama bypassing Senate ratification of UN climate ‘deal’. Morano is publisher of Climate Depot, former staff of U.S. Senate Environment  & Public Works Committee and producing and writing the new global warming documentary ‘Climate Hustle.’

Morano: “This is the Chinafication of America. Many global warming activists and the UN have previously praised China’s ability to impose climate and energy regulations without the messiness of democracy.

See: < href=”http://climatedepot.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=d8f230ce9e&e=d3a947e3d3″ target=”_blank”>NYT’s Friedman lauds China’s eco-policies: ‘One party can just impose politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward’

UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres laments U.S. democracy is ‘very detrimental’ in war on global warming — Lauds one-party ruled China for ‘doing it right’ on climate change

President Obama is taking a page from China’s government and is seeking to bypass democracy’s ‘very detrimental’ hurdles and just impose a new UN treaty on Americans. The Administration with both its EPA climate regulations (no climate impact)and the UN treaty has essentially declared ‘We don’t need no stinkin legislature.’

Sec. of State John Kerry is pushing the hardest for a UN agreement. See: Flashback NYT: John Kerry ‘hopes to use his position as secretary of state to achieve a legacy on global warming that has long eluded him’

We have known for years that the Obama administration was seeking no Senate ratification. See: Flashback 2009: Chris Horner: Kyoto II as Congressional-Executive Agreement: The Emerging Strategy?

The American people will now face an increasingly EPA centrally planned domestic energy economy and one now dictated from the United Nations without the Senate’s consent. The U.S. is currently heading to an energy deprived future. See: Winter blackouts could hit Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, regional grid operator warns

And we may end up like our European counterparts: See: Flashback 2011: We’re All North Koreans Now: ‘Era of Constant Electricity at Home is Ending, says UK power chief’ — ‘Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available’

Of course, eliminating plentiful energy is what the Obama administration officials have stated is their goal. See: Flashback 1975: John Holdren Says Real Threat to USA Is Cheap Energy: ‘The U.S.is threatened far more by the hazards of too much energy, too soon, than by the hazards of too little energy, too late.’

All of this comes at a time when the evidence continues to show that man-made global warming claims are failing. Global temperatures have flat-lined for nearly 18 years (with at least 38 excuses offered).

Sea level rise has decelerated. Arctic summer sea ice may hit a decade high in 2014. (Sorry John Holdren, looks like your Arctic warnings about missing winter sea ice is still far off): Antarctica sea ice is at record expansionExtreme weather is at or near historic lows, declining trends or no trends in tornadoeswild fires, droughts and floods.

But despite all of this, the UN IPCC’s new report will claim its worse than we thought – by continuing to make scarier and scarier predictions of 50 to 100 years from now. See: Geologist Rebuts Media-Hyped Draft Of New UN IPCC Report As ‘Nonsense Totally Contrary To Real Evidence’

When current reality fails to alarm, just make scarier and scarier predictions and claim its worse than we thought because our predictions are now more alarming.”

End Morano statement.

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels of Cato Institute: The President simply doesn’t care about the legislative branch when it comes to climate regulations.  He feels that the Supreme Court empowered him in Mass. v. EPA.  He lost the House over cap and trade in 2010 so what does it matter if the voters take it out on the Senate in 2014?  Besides, the electoral demographics in the Senate look as bad for the Repos in 2016 as they do for the Demos this year.  So they will just be out for two years anyway.

If that’s all cold and calculating, it is.  Welcome to Washington, where, with regard to climate change, we have a King, unless (fat chance) someone with standing can convince the courts to reign him in.” Flashback 2009: Chris Horner: Kyoto II as Congressional-Executive Agreement: The Emerging Strategy?Flashback: CEI’s Myron Ebell: ‘In the past, rulers who act as if the law does not apply to them were called tyrants’ – Obama’s UN climate agreement doesn’t need congressional approvalFlashback Feb. 2014: Obama’s UN climate agreement doesn’t need congressional approval

Related Links:

Flashback: ‘John Kerry is steering the Obama administration’s international focus to embarrassingly bad man-made climate fears’

Flashback NYT: John Kerry ‘hopes to use his position as secretary of state to achieve a legacy on global warming that has long eluded him’

Study: Global climate deal won’t stop dangerous warming: ‘Climate negotiators may need to reframe their work the 2 degree goal just doesn’t appear to be achievable, no matter how strong the progress made in Paris next year,’ said fellow Point Carbon analyst Ashley Lawson.

Kyoto II climate treaty coming in 2015 — And taxpayers are paying environmental groups to design it!

Coral Davenport and Christiana Figueres assure us ‘there’s no such thing as the U.N. imposing any regulation’ ; UN officials are just ‘working toward forging a historic, legally binding global-warming treaty’

U.S. Commits to New UN Climate Treaty! U.S. signs onto Brussels G-7 Summit Declaration: ‘We affirm our strong determination to adopt in 2015 a global agreement – a new protocol’

Developing Nations Demand $$$ to support new UN climate treaty: ‘We will want more than the $100bn to agree to a new Paris protocol’

Sec. Kerry challenges climate skeptics at House hearing: If skeptics are wrong and nothing is done, ‘life on the Earth can literally end’

Climate Treaties Like Kyoto Aren’t Coming Back: Ex-UN Climate Chief – ‘Pacts like the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate blocked by a 95-0 vote in 1997, are probably a thing of the past’

Follow  on Twitter at @ClimateDepot

Science, Fiction and Extinction #6

6thextinctionI enjoy science, and fiction (science fiction and just fiction), but I like to know how much fiction is in the science fiction I’m reading, and I certainly don’t want any fiction in the science I’m reading. With that caveat in mind, I’d like to comment on, and recommend to you, a book I’m currently reading. I think I understand how much of it is fiction, and there’s a lot of interesting science in it. It’s The 6th Extinction by James Rollins, Harper Collins, 426 pp. I’m recommending it with a little bit of caution, to help you separate the science (lots of it) from the fiction (an important bit).

I’m not going to spoil the mystery of the story by telling you how it comes out. It’s full of an amazing amount of real science, set in some exotic places I never heard of before, buffeting some interesting action figures (“Sigma Force”, Rollins’ scientifically-erudite military elite types) to stop some mad scientists from taking over the world to prevent the extinction of 25% of the world’s animal species by AD 2100 due to destruction of habitat and….climate change. Oh, you weren’t aware a major part of the world’s species are doomed…..DOOMED? Well, it’s a major sub-theme of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) nonsense, intended to appeal to people who think with their emotions.

I put the picture of my little foxy friend in here to make the case that I like animals too, and try to protect them, with money and my vote. Foxes are doing quite well here in Colorado, sponsored by Californians who come here and let their cats run loose. The coyotes are doing well too.

bddigjjfEverybody has heard of the Fifth Extinction; that was 66 million years ago, when something got the dinosaurs, and three out of four other species as well. That’s small potatoes, compared to The Great Dying, the largest extinction event and the one that affected the Earth’s ecology most profoundly. 252 million years ago, as much as 97% of species that leave a fossil record disappeared forever.

The dinosaur extinction is reasonably blamed on a meteor strike into the Yucatan Peninsula, followed by major volcanism. Some paleontologists blame the other extinctions on meteor strikes as well. However, Rollins’ tale of  The 6th Extinction is based on some recent “science” that grows out of CAGW. Like the rest of CAGW, it echoes the liberal theme that humanity is a blight on the Earth, causing overpopulation, habitat destruction, and catastrophic climate change/warming. This theme appeared with Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb in 1968, prophesying worldwide multi-million death by famine in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It hasn’t happened, but Ehrlich is still employed – in academia, of course. Incidentally, one of Ehrlich’s colleagues was John Holdren – now Mr. Obama’s science advisor.

A commendable feature in the book is an Author’s Note explaining some of the science described in the book – real science. Rollins quotes other books on the supposed coming extinction, such as The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History by Elizabeth Kolbert (Henry Holt, 2014), but he doesn’t try to defend the thesis as real science. In his Notes from the Scientific Record, at the beginning, Rollins quotes a recent Duke University study by Stuart Pimm et. al.: The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. As the Washington Post explained:

“Calculating extinction rates can be difficult, in part because no one knows exactly how many species there are,” explained Christine Dell’Amore of National Geographic. Experts have managed to identify at least 1.9 million animal species, and the study reported that there are at least 450,000 types of plants in existence, she added.

Pimm told Dell’Amore that conservationists are able to calculate the extinction rate of those species by tracking how many of them die out each year, similar to the technique used to determine a country’s mortality rate. Based on that approach, the study authors determined that between 100 and 1,000 species were lost per million per year, primarily due to climate change and habitat destruction resulting from human causes.

We don’t know how many species there are… wait, what?

There are, roughly 2 million animal species, and by those numbers, and their extinction rate (~500/million/year), we’re losing 1000 species per year? Really? I’ve heard of the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon, in the early 1900’s, by idiots that simply slaughtered them. And the American Bison was reduced to a few hundred individuals, before their slaughter was stopped. Neither of those was caused by habitat destruction or climate change; just by simple, stupid individual human greed. More recently, with flourishes of “science”, we’re been warned of the possible extinction of the polar bear and the Adelie penguin. Both species are thriving. And, as a general principle, there are more species and greater variety of species in warm climates – think Central Africa and the Amazon Basin – than in cold ones, like the polar regions. Global warming will kill them?

Do species become extinct? Of course; you can GOOGLE “species extinction 2013” and find some. One such website is called Living Along Side Wildlife. Another is a 10-year extinction countdown on the Scientific American blog.

The saddest example is the Western Black Rhinoceros, which has been reduced to about 20 individuals in the wild, due to individuals who kill the animal for its horn, ground up and sold as an aphrodisiac. But that’s not the fault of humanity, nor caused by climate change; that’s the crime of poachers who are killing protected animals in poor countries that don’t have the resources to protect a valuable resource. The list of 2013 extinctions is rather misleading; the ten species listed disappeared as long ago as the 1880’s. It’s certainly not 1000 species in a year…or even 100…or 10. It’s more like a small fraction of one species per year, at most, many due to natural changes – such as predation by other species. NONE have been caused by climate change.

So where does this seemingly serious “science” about extinction come from? Can’t you guess? More garbage from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); specifically, from Working Group 2 of Assessment Report 4 (AR4), issued in 2007. They said:

§4.4.11 Global synthesis including impacts on biodiversity was quite specific. If arming reached 3°C above pre-industrial levels (projected absent serious mitigation) 21-52% of all species were committed to extinction (not necessarily yet extinct) by 2100. This official finding was based on 78 conclusions from 57 peer-reviewed papers on climate change impacts on biodiversity, all listed in WG2 table 4.1. It appears to be overwhelming scientific evidence.

Well, there you go; 3 C (or 5 F) will wipe out a quarter to a half of all species on Earth. 57 peer-reviewed papers on the impact of CAGW on biodiversity tell us so.

This, of course, is the fiction part of Mr. Rollins’ book. Well, if you want to be a New York Times Best Selling author – as it says on the cover – I guess you have to pretend to believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change. And quoting Elizabeth Kolbert – a former NYT columnist – doesn’t hurt. Sigh!

If you’d like to read a serious book on climate and ecology, I recommend Landscapes and Cycles by Jim Steele, ISBN 1490 390189. It’s available from Amazon. Be sure to read Chapter 6, Saving the Large Blue Butterfly – which went “extinct” because its microclimate cooled. The cooling was real; the “extinction” was bogus.

California faces ‘most destructive earthquakes in over 200 years’

According to analysis completed between June 10 and August 5, 2014, by the International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center (IEVPC), California has entered its greatest risk period for the most destructive earthquakes in over 200 years.

The IEVPC began in February 2012 and includes some of the international seismic community’s most successful and experienced earthquake prediction experts.

From IEVPC CEO Mr. John L. Casey, “Because of the success achieved in climate prediction and seismic research by the IEVPC’s sister company, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC), these leading researchers approached me in late 2011 and asked that I pull their collective talents together to create the world’s best earthquake prediction company.”

Mr. Casey adds further, “Because we had early success in predicting large earthquakes and associated volcanic activity, we recently initiated two new programs. The first was aimed at alerting insurance firms that serve California of an increased risk they face in that state. This was started three months ago. Second we began another test program in July to refine our long range prediction capabilities over the next year.

The Test Program has already posted on line its first test items, what the IEVPC calls “Observations.” Today a California specific “Observation” has been added for the Southern California area including the Baja Peninsula. These observations, instead of predictions, will permit objective, public, independent review of the IEVPC approaches to geophysical event analysis during the coming year of the Test Program.

The special warning regarding California included in this press release is the result of two indications of record quakes coming to the US west Coast.

First, is the strong correlation that has been established between a 206 year climate change cycle discovered by Mr. Casey in 2007 and the largest earthquakes on the planet. These cycles as his research shows, not only accounts for the end of global warming that occurred many years ago, but also shows a very strong correlation with the world wide cold temperature phase of the 206 year cycle and the largest most destructive earthquakes. This cold phase called a “solar hibernation” by the SSRC, has been well documented and analyzed at the SSRC.

The last time a solar hibernation struck was between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum. It was a time which saw the largest ever series of earthquakes recorded in the United States as well as the largest ever recorded volcanic eruption on Earth.

Mr. Casey reiterates this general geophysical threat to the planet.

“If this 206 year solar cycle behaves as it did before, then there is no doubt that we are in for our worst ever earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The SSRC prediction for the bottom of the cold phase will see the worst from the 2020’s through the 2030’s. However, it may be this cycle is getting off to an early powerful start as a result of the end of global warming years ago and the rapid drop in global temperatures we have been experiencing beginning in 2003. We have already seen some of the largest earthquakes ever on the planet, for example, the 2004 Indonesian M9.1+ quake and tsunami and the March 11, 2011 Japanese M9.0 quake. We have also had several large volcanic eruptions that have shut down aircraft traffic for large areas of the globe in the past five years. This global threat which pertains to California as well as the rest of the planet is covered in some detail in the June 10 edition of the Global Climate Status Report published by the SSRC.”

Second, the IEVPC’s recent analysis of seismic trends in California is in part an outcome of interest in the IEVPC earthquake prediction capabilities expressed by California insurers. The IEVPC’s analysis of Southern California indicates that that this area of the US west coast has now entered its highest risk period since the modern satellite era began in the 1970’s.

Dr. Dong Choi, Director of Research for the IEVPC, in Canberra, Australia says, “We were only asked to look at Southern California and with our own limited funding. Yet, we were still able to detect general trends of seismic activity that suggests a new period of major quakes is likely between 23 and 33 degrees North Latitude along the San Andreas fault. That includes the Gulf of California up to the Santa Barbara area. Concurrent with this general higher risk we see for that length of the San Andreas, we have also observed other precursor signals that warrant posting of another “Observation” in our new Test Program for the area near Angel de la Guarda in the Gulf.”

Postings for any Observations will be made to the IEVPC web site as they occur. See www.ievpc.org.

ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL EARTHQUAKE AND VOLCANO PREDICTION CENTER (IEVPC)

The International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center (IEVPC) was founded in February 2012 by a team of scientists and other experts with established track records for excellence in science research, especially tectonics, volcanism, seismic research, management, and other skills necessary for achieving the Mission and Objectives of the IEVPC.This team originated after its founders realized that there were strong correlations between the occurrences of earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic activity, solar activity, and precursor geophysical events.

These precursors have been studied for many years by the IEVPC founders, staff scientists and researchers who represent the primary body of expertise in understanding these early signals that catastrophic geophysical events (CGE) are about to strike.

Is God Evil or the Absence of Evil?

einstein_god_jesus

Albert Einstein on God and the Gospel. For a larger view click on the image.

I found this amazing video posted on Florida Representative Ray Pilon’s Facebook page. The professor, like many in our schools, colleges and universities, is teaching his students that “if God exists then God is evil.” His rational is that God created everything in the world, evil exists in the world, therefore God is evil.

It takes the understanding of a young Albert Einstein to explain to the professor what he is missing. God is the absence of evil, just as darkness is the absence of light.

Without knowing it this young boy is a Christian apologist much like Dr. William Lane Craig and others. To better understand read Dr. Craig’s God, Evil, and the Rules of Logic. When using logic to describe God and evil Dr. Craig concludes, “[T]he laws of logic are neither arbitrarily willed by God nor is He subservient to them; rather they are grounded in His nature.”

Dr. Craig also addresses this issue in response to a letter from an atheist. Please read the question and Dr. Craig’s answer to the question: Is God Able to Do Evil?

Hat tip to Kingdom Culture for posting this video. Watch and comment if you wish:

If you wish to learn more about Christian apologetics please visit  Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image titled “Feel God” is courtesy of Imgion.com.

Guess who has made ‘Eleven Major Climate Change Predictions’ that have Come True?

Mr. John L. Casey, President Space and Science Research Corporation, has an amazing track record of major climate predictions dating back to 2007. No one has matched his accuracy in predicting major climate changes. No one.

Mr. Casey is a former White House national space policy adviser under two U.S. Presidents and the author of “Dark Winter“. Watch this interview to learn more about his book and unprecedented string of accurate climate change predictions.

DARK WINTER BOOK COVERThe predictions 1 through 7 below were made primarily in Mr. Casey’s original press release on April 30, 2007 and by his web-site-posted peer reviewed ‘RC Theory’ research paper, January 22, 2008. These predictions were in some part also covered and in his climate books, “Cold Sun” (June 2011) and “Dark Winter” (August 2014). The April 2007 press release is on page 70 of “Dark Winter.” The RC Theory paper is available at the RC Theory page at the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC).

Numerous other press releases and communications to U.S. government officials and the media since 2007 reiterated these original predictions from 2007 and 2008. These predictions have been confirmed through multiple U.S. and international science data bases and organizations that track solar activity and global temperatures. Further, the Global Climate Status Report, (GCSR) produced by the SSRC displays global temperature data in chart form that validates global temperature predictions made in 2007, 2008, as well as the start of the solar hibernation, using NASA, NOAA, and other international climate data.

Prediction 1. That global warming (caused by the Sun) would end within three to fourteen years of 2007.

This has since been validated by the SSRC and numerous others. Even the UK Met Office last year acknowledged that 17 years had gone by without global warming. September marks year 18. There is no longer any global warming. Mr. Casey’s calculations showed the average temperature curve associated with the 206 year solar cycle determined that 2007 or between 3 and 14 years (RC Theory paper) of that date would be the peak of the modern warm period. In a July 1, 2008 TV news conference held by Mr. Casey, he announced that there was sufficient data to declare that global warming had in fact already ended.

Prediction 2. That the Sun would begin to enter a state of “solar hibernation” beginning in solar cycle 24 and would be marked by a dramatic reduction in the Suns’ energy output.

This historic, reduction of solar activity during solar cycle 24 as measured by sunspots, magnetic field strength, solar wind velocity etc. and has since been verified by NASA, the SSRC, and many others.

Prediction 3. That the Earth’s oceans would begin to cool soon after 2007.

Though it was undetectable at the time, the actual start of ocean temperature decline apparently began in 2003. See the actual chart of ocean temps that verifies the predicted decline as Figure 3 on page 40 of the GCSR.

Prediction 4. That the Earth’s atmospheres would begin to cool soon after 2007.

This has also been validated by the SSRC, and all major global temperature measurement data sets. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 on page 38 and page 39 of the GCSR.

Prediction 5. That a new cold climate would envelope the Earth and during solar cycles 25 and 26, (the 2020’s thru the 2040’s).

Sunspot counts for cycles 25 and 26 would approach 50. That this cold climate would bring record cold to the planet causing substantial crop damage – expected to lead to “world wide, agricultural, social, and economic disruption.” (RC Theory paper). Use of the phrase “significant loss of life” was added to the list of ill-effects of the new cold climate by Mr. Casey in other press releases and public statements and books.
This is the most important prediction made by John Casey and can only be verified as the new cold climate period deepens. Given the accuracy of his other predictions this also appears likely as the global temperatures continue their predicted decline and solar activity enters a new low level after passing the peak of activity for solar cycle 24.

Prediction 6. That the solar cycle #24 would have around 74 sunspots at peak (about half the official NASA prediction of 145 sunspots).

This important prediction for the Sun’s behavior during solar cycle 24 was well documented in the RC Theory research paper posted January 2008 and discussed between Mr. Casey and NASA (phone and emails) during May-June 2007. The specific 74 sunspot prediction was passed via phone to NASA’s solar physics group leader in May-June 2007 and via other publications. Mr. Casey’s prediction and the large error in NASA’s prediction are also evident by comparing NASA’s solar activity forecast for solar cycle 24 between their web posting of 2006 and 2013. This latter 2013 NASA forecast showing solar cycle 24 performance validates Mr. Casey’s “spot-on” prediction for solar cycle 24, where NASA was off by almost 100%.

Prediction 7. That 2012 would be colder than 2008 in terms of global atmospheric temperatures.

This prediction was made via SSRC Press Release 2-2010 on May 10, 2010. It was validated after a review of global temperature data sets in early 2014 and documented on page 100 of “Dark Winter.” Though many were told by NASA and NOAA that 2012 was the warmest year ever, a more thorough examination of the data shows the average temperature for most major global temperature data sets showed that only the first eight months were warmer and that the year overall, was as cold or colder than 2008 as Mr. Casey predicted.

Prediction 8. That the new cold era would coincide with record earthquake and volcanic activity.

This prediction was made both in Mr. Casey’s research paper on the subject and a press release at the same time. The SSRC Research Report 1-2010 (Preliminary) from March 1, 2010 titled “Correlation of Solar Activity Minimums and Large Magnitude Geophysical Events,” is at the RC Theory page of the SSRC web site. The associated press release SSRC 1-2010 titled “Sun’s Activity Linked to Largest Earthquakes and Volcanoes,” is at the ‘Press Release Archives’ page of the SSRC web site.

This prediction for increased earthquake and volcanic activity has been verified by other researchers, including in a recent paper by Choi, Casey, Maslov and Tsunoda (see at page 7 of the June 2014 edition of the GCSR). This joint paper is titled “Global increase in seismic and magmatic activities since 1990 and their relation to solar cycles.”

Ongoing verification of the increased geophysical activity predicted in 2010 by Casey is exemplified by the record M9.0 earthquake one year later on March 11, 2011 with the Japanese Tohoku Earthquake that destroyed the Fukushima nuclear power plant and killed over 13,000 people. This prediction is further validated by the M7.8 and M8.0 earthquakes of northern Chile in 2014. It should also be noted that the great Indonesian M9.1+ earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004 that killed over 230,000 occurred after global oceans began to cool after 2003.

Recent increased volcanic activity has been demonstrated by the Mt. Sangeang Api volcano, Indonesia, the Puyehue volcano , Chile, the Eyjafjallajokull volcano, Iceland, et.al.. As of August 22, 2014 volcano Bardargunga in Iceland is threatening to erupt. The first three volcanic eruptions shut down air traffic for large areas of the globe in each case.

Combined, these geophysical events demonstrate the existence of an increased level of major earthquake and volcanic activity as predicted by Mr. Casey.

Prediction 9. That the decline in Arctic sea ice had ended and was now a new long term growth trend.

This prediction was made June 10, 2013, paradoxically, the year after NOAA announced that Arctic Sea ice had reached its lowest extent ever recorded and restated its forecast for continued declines. The prediction by Mr. Casey was widely distributed via SSRC Press Release 4-2013 and was titled,” Arctic Sea Ice to Grow as Global Cooling Era Takes Hold.”

This prediction has since been validated by NOAA data that shows Arctic sea ice declines have stopped their historic decline and now show a dramatic reversal that actually began after 2007 and has been repeated during 2014. See chart of NOAA data for Arctic sea ice extent on page 44 of the June 10, 2014 edition of the GCSR.

Note: Al Gore, NOAA and UK climate officials have over the years made predictions that the entire Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2008 or other past years. They have since adjusted their predictions out to safer dates like 2030 or 2050.

Prediction 10. That the North Atlantic Ocean temperatures had reached a peak or maximum warming, and these waters would soon begin a long term temperature decline lasting decades.

This prediction was made via SSRC Press Release 1-2013, on February 4, 2013 titled, “Climate Change to Next Cold Era Accelerates with Colder North Atlantic. The time frame for evaluation of this relatively recent prediction is still open. However, the largest ocean heat content decline ever recorded for the North Atlantic has been recorded and reinforces that this prediction will also transpire as described.

Prediction 11. That the world’s sea levels would soon begin to decline (between 2014 and 2020) and reach the level they were in the early 1800’s predicted by the late 2020’s and 2030’s.

This recent August 21, 2013 prediction will be evaluated when the time frame indicated has been entered for a few years. The prediction was documented at a news conference held near Miami Florida and was recorded in the SSRC Press Release 7-2013 (August 21, 2014) which is posted at the SSRC web site.

Validation of this prediction, though in abeyance, is receiving support from the fact that sea levels on the US west coast have already begun to drop as a consequence of the Pacific Ocean cooling The Atlantic Ocean starts its predicted drop in sea levels soon.

Added validation comes from the setting of all time records for the combined amount of sea ice for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

Most importantly, the ongoing decline in global ocean temperatures since 2003 underscores this prediction by Mr. Casey that a long term global ocean cooling is to be followed by historic drops in sea levels. The colder oceans will of course result in lower sea levels just as past ocean warming contributed to rising sea levels.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image with John Casey’s book cover is titled dark winter is by Elvens Day.

Big Fat Lies About Fat

Americans are obsessed with fat; either with eating it or being it. We’ve been told that we’re too fat and we’re told that eating fat is bad for you.

Being fat is your own business. You’ll feel better if you lose a few pounds, but you will enjoy your next meal if it has a fat content rather than being a bland cereal…which explains why so many cereals today have some surgery covering or content.

The fact is you can eat almost anything you like and remain a healthy weight if you just don’t eat too much of it. It’s not rocket science.

For politicians, however, controlling what we eat has become an obsession. A demented Democratic Representative, Rosa DeLauro, from Connecticut, has proposed a bill—the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Act—SWEET for short, that would penalize people one-cent for every teaspoon of sugar used in their drink of choice. It’s none of her business, let along the government’s, what you want to drink.

AA - New Food Plan to Fight ObesityThis obsession with what we eat has been personified by First Lady Michelle Obama who championed the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kinds Act that overhauled nutrition standards affecting more than thirty million children in schools around the nation.

It authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set standards for all food and beverages sold during the school day. The law includes vending machines, snack cards, and daytime fundraisers. That now means that campus bake sales, the most popular fundraiser, now has to pay heed to a federal law that forbids selling cakes, cupcakes, or cookies.

Laws like this are a perfect example of how intrusive into the ordinary lives of Americans of all ages are laws that are slowly killing the concept of personal choice and personal freedom. They also demonstrate how wrong such laws are when they are written and passed by people who are clueless about nutrition.

A recent Gallup poll on “consumption habits” revealed that “Nearly twice as many Americans say they are actively trying to avoid fat in their diet (56%) as say they are actively avoiding carbohydrates (29%). However, fewer Americans are avoiding fat now more than a decade ago.”

Over the years as a book reviewer and avid reader, I have read “You Must Eat Meat” by Max Ernest Jutte, MD and Frank Murray, and “The Cholesterol Delusion” by Ernest N. Curtis, MD. Both books authoritatively debunk what Americans have repeatedly been told about meat and cholesterol, but my earliest advisor on these and other food related topics was Rebecca Caruba, my Mother, who taught gourmet cooking for three decades in local adult schools and who authored two cookbooks. She was a keen student of nutrition and early on warned students against margarine, telling them to use real butter and to enjoy all manner of meats, cheeses, and other foods we are constantly told are not good for us.

Cover - Big Fact SurpriseAt this point I want to add Nina Teicholz to the list of heroes like my Mother and the authors of the two books mentioned above. A skilled journalist, she has written a 479-page book, “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet”. The fact that it includes nearly 140 pages of tiny, single-spaced notes regarding every detail in the book tells you why it took some nine years to write it.

Simply stated, everything Americans think they know about our diets is wrong, the result of a deliberate campaign to convince us that eating fat is bad for us when, in fact, creamy cheeses and sizzling steaks are the key to reversing the obesity, diabetes, and heart disease that affect too many Americans.

As William Davis, M.D., author of “Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight and Find Your Path Back to Health” said, “A page-turner story of science gone wrong…Misstep by misstep, blunder by blunder by blunder, Teicholz recounts the statistical cherry-picking, political finagling, and pseudo-scientific bully that brought us to yet another of the biggest mistakes in health and nutrition, the low-fat and low-saturated fat myth for heart health.”

The myth began in the 1950s with Ancel Benjamin Keys, a biologist and pathologist at the University of Minnesota. He was searching for the causes of heart disease. The nation was extremely fearful about it and the heart attack that President Eisenhower had while in office only added to their fears. Keys concluded that cholesterol was a major factor, but as Teicholz points out “It is a vital component of every cell membrane, controlling what goes in and out of the cell. It is responsible for the metabolism of sex hormones and is found at its highest concentration in the brain.”

Keys and other researchers, however, noting that cholesterol was the primary component of atherosclerotic plaques, assumed it to be “one of the main culprits in the development of coronary disease…This vivid and seemingly intuitive idea,” says Teicholz, “has stayed with us, even as the science has shown this characterization to be a highly simplistic and even inaccurate picture of the problem.” Keys would devote his life to advocating his misinterpretation of cholesterol and fat.

The problem with the word “fat” is that it has two very different meanings. One is the fat we eat and the other is the fat on our bodies. A book worth reading is “Fat: It’s Not What You Think” by Connie Leas, published in 2008 by Prometheus Books. As Ms. Teicholz notes, “A large number of experiments have since confirmed that restricting fat does nothing to slim people down (quite the reverse, actually), yet even so, the idea that there could be such a thing as ‘slimming fat’ will probably always seem to us like an oxymoron.”

I know that few will read Ms. Teicholz book, but you will surely welcome knowing that “saturated fat has not been demonstrated to lead to an increased risk of heart attacks for the great majority of people, and even the narrowing of the arteries has not been shown to predict a heart attack.”

The problem for all of us is that the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health both adopted the incorrect analysis of Keys et all, institutionalizing the diet-heart hypothesis and thus are setting the nutrition agenda.

My Mother cooked the most wonderful meals every day and more so on Sundays. She lived to 98 and my Father to 93, eating all manner of meat dishes along with fish and other choices. We all ate cheeses with gusto. And, yes, we loved pasta and Mother’s fabulous home baked breads and desserts. I am coming up soon on age 77 and my diet reflects what kept them alive and disease-free for all of their years.

If you or someone you know is seriously obsessed with their weight and health, recommend “The Big Fat Surprise” to them. I recommend it to you!

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of WallpapersPlanet.com.

Renewables: Florida’s Green Energy Killing Fields

BirdsFlorida Power and Light (FP&L) on its website states, “At our three solar energy centers throughout Florida, we’re making the most of our state’s sunshine, turning it into clean energy and using it to power your home or business.” FP&L has solar energy centers (solar panel farms) located in Cape Canaveral (Space Coast Next Generation Solar Energy Center), Desoto County (Desoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center) and Indiantown (Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center).

In August 2007 then Governor Crist joined FPL Group Inc. chairman and chief executive officer Lew Hay in announcing FPL Group’s $2.4 billion investment program aimed at increasing the use of solar thermal energy and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. One of the country’s largest electric utilities, FPL is planning to build 300 megawatts of solar generating capacity in Florida. The new facility will avoid nearly 11 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions over a 20-year period. FPL Groups serves customers in 26 states, and its principal subsidiary, Florida Power & Light Company, serves more than 4.3 million customer accounts in Florida.

“It only makes sense that the sunshine state would have a solar power plant,” former Governor Crist said. “This plant will serve as an example to other Florida and American companies that alternative energy can work.”

According to the Tampa Bay Times, “As of June 2013, California leads the nation with 3,761 megawatts of installed solar capacity. Arizona comes in second with 1,250 megawatts. New Jersey, which isn’t exactly known for its sunny skies but where roof-mounted units have proven popular, ranks third with 1,119 megawatts. Florida, by contrast, has 202 megawatts, making it No. 10 in the nation.”

What the media does not tell you is how many birds have been killed at FP&L’s three solar energy centers.

The author of Energy Freedom and Executive Director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE) Marita Noon writes, “Even green projects have an impact on their surrounding environment. Green energy, specifically so-called renewables [wind, solar], has been sold to the American public as the answer to a host of crimes against the planet.”

Noon reports:

Wind turbines chop up bald and golden eagles, and other endangered species, like a Cuisinart—the taller turbines with longer blades (which produce more energy, and, therefore, is where the trend is heading) have a predicted annual ten-fold mortality increase.

[ … ]

Hundreds of acres of photovoltaic solar panels confuse migratory water birds, such as the “once-critically endangered brown pelican whose lifestyle involves fishing by diving into open water,” to veer miles out of their way to dive toward what they perceive are lakes or wetlands—only to die from “blunt force trauma.” At the largest solar thermal plant in the world, Ivanpah, owned by BrightSource Energy, the 170,000 reflecting mirrors—designed to “superheat liquid in boilers”—literally fries feathers. The USA Today reports that the intense radiation—called solar flux—has singed some birds, melted feathers, and denatured the protein in their wings as they fly through the intense heat. Unable to fly, the injured birds drop out of the sky and die.

Ellen Knickmeyer and John Locher from the Associated Press report, “Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — ‘streamers,’ for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair.  Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one ‘streamer’ every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator’s application to build a still-bigger version.”

ABC NEWS VIDEO: Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) mandated that 33% of the states energy be from solar power, stating, “The sun in California is like the oil in Texas.”

The BrightSource Energy website states, “Since its founding in 2006, BrightSource has significantly evolved – from a small start-up with a great idea that became the foundation for the world’s largest solar thermal power project – to a company focused on global deployment of its solar field technology and support services.”

On September 21, 2012, the LA Times ran a story about the BrightSource Energy large-scale solar projects titled, “Taxpayers, ratepayers will fund California solar plants,” with the subhead: A new breed of prospectors — banks, insurers, utility companies — are receiving billions in subsidies while taxpayer and ratepayers are paying most of the costs. Critics say it’s a rip-off.

Florida FP&L ratepayers subsidize these three renewable solar energy wildlife killing fields. Will we be constructing more of these “solar deserts” in the sunshine state?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Charlie Crist says Florida is the Sunshine State, but “we’re hardly doing any solar energy production”
Climate change issue highlights depth of Crist-Scott divide
State Gave $69 Million Loan to Green Energy Company on Verge of Bankruptcy

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Supports Using Food For Fuel While Children are Starving

Ethanol is a farmer welfare program with the government decreeing corn based Ethanol be converted into fuel which has resulted in dramatically rising prices and conversion of huge amounts of acreage to corn production from other crops. Simply another example of government favoring one group (farmers) at the expense of consumers who now pay a lot more for corn based foods at the store and gasoline at the station.

 

Earth’s Energy in an article titled Reducing Carbon: Unintended Consequences reports:

Over the past couple of years there has been much written about how the attempt by the US to substitute ethanol for gasoline was leading to higher food prices.  The ethanol is made from corn and as the demand for ethanol shot up (largely mandated by government requirements that gasoline had to have a minimum ethanol content and corresponding subsidies to the ethanol industry), this meant less corn was available for other uses in the food chain, including the feeding of livestock. Initially the ethanol content was to be 10% but in the past year the US government has raised this target to 15%. (See, for example, Ethanol Blamed for Record Food Prices in MIT Technology Review and The Case Against Biofuels: Probing Ethanol’s Hidden Costs at Environment 360)

Senator Claire McCaskill: Are you not aware our country was developed on cheap, not expensive energy?

Are you not aware of the development of tremendous amounts of oil and natural gas taking place in the United States today by fracking? Are you not aware the reason we don’t have dramatically more production is due to the government blocking development by placing lands off limits. The government is our biggest enemy in trying to reach energy independence along with communists posing as environmentalists!

Are you not aware we have almost 200,000 miles of petroleum pipelines in the U.S.A. but the Keystone Pipeline has been blocked by your party for over 5 years for strictly political reasons? They say it isn’t safe to transport by pipeline which is ridiculous as it is the safest form of transportation. Currently the oil is coming by rail and you see how safe it is by the accidents occurring?

Are you not aware ethanol is subsidized and raises the price of gasoline to consumers and businesses alike but benefiting farmers?

Being a member of Congress I can understand how every time you decide to mandate something for the free market you muck it up. Corn should be used for food not as a fuel additive that decreases performance and harms small engines.

Turn on the TV and soon an ad appears asking for $19 a month to help feed hungry children around the world followed by another ad saying one in four children in the United States goes to bed hungry at night. If true, how can you in good conscience support Ethanol unless you are more concerned about buying votes through corn subsidies to farmers than the health of children around the world?

Greens are the Enemies of Energy

Here in America and elsewhere around the world, Greens continue to war against any energy other than the “renewable” kind, wind and solar, that is more costly and next to useless. Only coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear keeps the modern and developing world functioning and growing.

The most publicized aspect is Obama’s “War on Coal” and, thanks to the Environmental Protection Agency, it has been successful; responsible for shutting down several hundred coal-fired plants by issuing costly regulations based on the utterly false claim that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to save the Earth from “global warming.”

Light Bulb

Rest in peace.

The EPA is the government’s ultimate enemy of energy, though the Department of the Interior and other elements of the government participate in limiting access to our vast energy reserves and energy use nationwide. By government edict, the incandescent light bulb has been banned. How insane is that?

The Earth has been cooling for seventeen years at this point, but the Greens call this a “pause.” That pause is going to last for many more years and could even become a new ice age.

A study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) on the impact of the proposed new EPA regulation of emissions found that, as CNSNews reported, it “could be the costliest federal rule by reducing the Gross National Product by $270 billion a per year and $3.4 trillion from 2017 to 2040” adding $2.2 trillion in compliance costs for the same period. Jay Timmons, CEO and president of NAM, said, “This regulation has the capacity to stop the manufacturing comeback in its tracks.”

EPA FactsAs Thomas Pyle, the president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), said in June, “President Obama is delivering on his promise to send electricity prices skyrocketing.” Noting a proposed EPA regulation that would shut more plants, he said “With this new rule, Americans can expect to pay $200 more each year for their electricity.” Having failed to turn around the nation’s economy halfway into his second term, Obama is adding to the economic burdens of all Americans.

America could literally become energy independent given its vast reserves of energy sources. In the case of coal, the federal government owns 957 billion short tons of coal in the lower 48 States, of which about 550 billion short tons—about 57 percent—are available in the Powder River Basin. It is estimated to be worth $22.5 trillion to the U.S. economy, but as the IER notes, it “remains unrealized due to government barriers on coal production.” It would last 250 years, greater than Russia and China. When you add in Alaska, the U.S. has enough coal to last 9,000 years at today’s consumption rates!

In 2013 the IER estimated the worth of the government’s oil and coal technically recoverable resources to the economy to be $128 trillion, about eight times our national debt at the time.

There isn’t a day that goes by that environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the National Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, along with dozens of others, do not speak out against the extracting and use of all forms of energy, calling coal “dirty” and claiming Big Oil is the enemy.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Greens held off attacking the nuclear industry because it does not produce “greenhouse gas” emissions. Mind you, these gases, primarily carbon dioxide, represent no threat of warming and, indeed, as the main “food” of all vegetation on Earth, more carbon dioxide would be a good thing, increasing crop yields and healthy forests.

Events such as the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster raised understandable fears. The Greens began opposing nuclear energy claiming that radiation would kill millions in the event of a meltdown. This simply is not true. Unlike France that reprocesses spent nuclear fuel, President Carter’s decision to not allow reprocessing proved to be very detrimental, requiring repositories for large quantities.

To this day, one of the largest, Yucca Mountain Repository, authorized in 1987, is opposed by Greens. Even so, it was approved in 2002 by Congress, but the funding for its development was terminated by the Obama administration in 2011. Today there are only four new nuclear power plants under construction and, in time, all one hundred existing plants will likely be retired starting in the mid-2030s.

The Greens’ attack on coal is based on claims that air quality must be protected, but today’s air quality has been steadily improving for years and new technologies have reduced emissions without the need to impose impossible regulatory standards. As the American Petroleum Institute recently noted, “These standards are not justified from a health perspective because the science is simply not showing a need to reduce ozone levels.”

The new EPA standards are expected to be announced in December. We better hope that the November midterm elections put enough new candidates into Congress to reject those standards or the cost of living in America, the capacity to produce electricity, the construction and expansion of our manufacturing sector will all worsen, putting America on a path to decline.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

DARK WINTER BOOK COVERRELATED VIDEO: The Space and Science Research Corporation founder and president and former White House national space policy adviser John L. Casey joins Newsmax TV – Mid Point to discuss facts about ominous changes taking place in the Sun and the climate.

Casey highlights some revelations from his new book, “Dark Winter: How The Sun Is Causing A 30-Year Cold Spell.”

‘Marijuana — The Absolute Truth’ Conference in Tampa, FL on August 23, 2014

MMJ candy

Marijuana laced products seized by law enforcement officials.

John Redman, Executive Director of California for Drug Free Youth, Amy Ronshausen, Deputy Director of Save Our Society From Drugs and Dr. Jessica Spencer, Florida Director of VoteNo2.org, will be speaking at a conference titled, “Marijuana – The Absolute Truth” on August 23, 2014 in Tampa, Florida. Dr. Spencer states, “All faiths and all groups are welcome! Let’s get motivated and learn about how marijuana legislation has affected California, Colorado and other states!”

Redman, Ronshausen and Spencer are concerned about the hundreds of potential marijuana laced products sold in other states like Colorado including “pot cookies” and “pot tarts” making their way to Florida should Amendment 2 pass.

pot tarts

Various flavors of “Pot Tarts”.

According to Dr. Spencer, “Pot cookies and other marijuana edibles contain a super-high concentrated amount of THC, sometimes reaching 16 times or more THC than what a single joint would have.  These edible pot products are dangerous and insidious.  Imagine if the packaging was removed and you had no idea the cookie you were about to eat was a pot cookie.  Pulitzer Prize winning, New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd describes her experience with a pot cookie as being in a ‘hallucinatory state’ for 8 hours and that she was unable to get up from her hotel bed to get a drink of water. People seem to view pot as a benign drug with no really bad effects – just the munchies they say, but these new and powerful edibles, like cookies, are a threat and everybody should be aware of them.”

Below is the flyer for the event with contact information for those wishing to attend:

marijuana conference in tampa

Click on the flyer for a larger printable version.

Here are sixteen slides depicting the direct and indirect impact of marijuana use on the citizens of the state of Colorado. These pictures tell the story (click on any of the slides for a larger view):

co 2014 8 seizures

 

co 2014 8 hash oil potency

co 2014 8 alcohol sales

 

co 2014 8 alcohol consumption

 

co 2014 8 burn victims

 

co 2014 8 shipped to other states

 

co 2014 state distribution

 

c0 2014 8 all related exposure

co 2014 8 children ingestion

 

co 2014 8 hospital

 

co 2014 8 emergency room visits

 

co 2014 8 19 to 25 pre post

 

co 2014 8 legal medical states

 

co 2014 8 national vs co

 

co 2014 8 youth usage

Why You Should Brush Off That New Keystone XL Study

A new study claims that the State Department underestimated the amount of greenhouse emissions from the Keystone XL pipeline. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Building the Keystone XL pipeline could lead to as much as four times more greenhouse gas emissions than the State Department has estimated for the controversial project, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change that relies on different calculations about oil consumption.

The study’s authors based their calculation on the premise that increased supplies of petroleum through the pipeline would push down global oil prices marginally, and that would lead to an increase in consumption and thus pollution.

But wait, the State Department concluded in its final environmental impact statement that Canada’s oil sands crude will be developed and affect global consumption no matter how it’s transported:

[A]pproval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States.

Based upon that analysis, the State Department determined that the pipeline would have minimal impact on the environment.

The oil is already coming to market by rail, and more pipelines are either in the planning stages or are working their way through the approval process. It will get to market, one way or another.

What’s more, the AP reports that some economists are skeptical of the study’s findings:

An increase of 121 million tons of carbon dioxide is dwarfed by the 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide the world pumped into the air in 2013. That’s why University of Sussex economist Richard Tol dismissed the calculated Keystone effect as merely a drop in the bucket. If somebody is concerned about climate change, he wrote in an email, the pipeline “should be the furthest from your mind.”

Independent energy economist Judith Dwarkin in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, dismissed the study, faulting the idea that added oil production will lower the price and boost demand. Usually, she said, it’s consumption that spurs price and then oil production.

Since we know this oil will be developed, the Keystone XL pipeline should be a part of the transport mix. It will create jobs, boost local economies, improve America’s energy security, and do it with minimal impact on the environment.

This study didn’t offer any reason to not approve it.

UPDATE: Oil Sands Fact Check points out that State Department considered and cited a draft of this study in its final environmental impact statement.

Follow Sean Hackbarth on Twitter at @seanhackbarth and the U.S. Chamber at @uschamber.

EDITORS NOTE: In its August 18, 2014 edition Forbes reports, “Warren Buffett and Carl Ican, two of the nation’s richest investors have benefited from insufficient pipeline capacity. Millions of barrels of oil are being moved around America by train, and and Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owned railroad company Burlington/Northern and railcarmaker Union Tank Car. Ican owns railcar producers American Railcar Industries and ACF Industries, together with a huge fleet of oil-carrying railcars.

The featured image is a mining truck carrying oil sands in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. Photographer: Jimmy Jeong/Bloomberg.