Friday, June 13, 2008

Advising McCain & Educating RFK Jr

Recently I received two letters. One from John McCain asking for a donation and one from a RFK Jr about contributing to his endorsed global warming BS organization called , National Resources Defense Council, complete with pictures of "cuddly" polar bears.

So I decided why not take advantage and send them my 2 cents in the return envelopes they so thoughtful provided?

So I did and I urge you to do so too!

Below is my letter to Senator McCain and my answer to National Resources Defense Counsel.


Dear Senator McCain,

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less petition reached over 500,000 signatures!

We are the only country not making use of our natural resources. China drills 60 miles off the shore of Florida but we cannot?

You want to rally the base, and then make this issue part of your campaign, people WANT it. Moreover, energy independence is necessary for our national security.

Going "Green," developing, and using our natural resources are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. There is NO alternative energy that can even come close to meeting our energy needs now. We drill and build nuclear power plants while at the same time continue to search for viable alternative energy sources. Let the free market create new business in both, instead of making draconian laws based on erroneous assumptions (man-made global warming) that will be ruinous to our economy and our super power status.

This issue combined with pork barrel vetoing, support of our national defense and Israel, could find this envelope with a check the next time around.

Thank you,

My name inserted here
Conservative Blogger, Prescient delegate, ____ County Republicans
My address inserted here

My answer to global warming kool aid drinker organization

You'd never know it from all those sorry photos of sad polar bears, but global polar bear numbers have actually increased over the past 40 years. In 2001, the polar bear specialist group of the World Conservation Union found that of 20 distinct polar bear populations, one or possibly two were declining, while more than half were stable and two subpopulations were actually increasing. In its more recent study of 2006, the group found a less rosy picture, but not much less rosy. It discovered that of 19 polar bear populations, five were declining, five were stable and two were increasing; there wasn't enough data to judge the fortunes of the remaining seven populations. The global polar bear population has increased from around 5,000 in the 1960s to 25,000 today.

According to Mitchell Taylor, a Canadian polar bear biologist, these beasts are not nearing extinction: "Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct."

One of the "nine scientific errors" found in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, following a case in the high court last year, concerned his hysterical claims about polar bears. Gore said that a scientific study had found that polar bears were drowning because they had to "swim long distances to find ice". Yet the only scientific study that Gore's team could provide was one which showed that "four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

According to Bjorn Lomborg, the widespread concern about bears drowning as a result of man's industrial terror springs from this "single sighting of four dead bears the day after an abrupt windstorm". I once saw a kitten frozen to death in a field: maybe I should cite this as evidence that the planet faces a terrifying global freeze?

Lomborg has pointed out that, while the global polar bear population has increased since the 1960s, there has been some decline in subpopulations since the 1980s - but this is most likely related to hunting. Every year 49 bears are shot by hunters in the west Hudson area alone. So if you want to Save The Bear, why not ban hunting instead of claiming fantastically that low-energy lightbulbs, cheap flights, shopping in Tesco and human fun in general is somehow killing them off?

Today's polar bear frenzy is a modern morality tale - and like all morality tales, it has a highly dysfunctional relationship with the truth. The polar bear has cynically been transformed into a symbol of nature's desperate struggle to resist mankind's wickedness.

Environmentalists have effectively turned the bears into cuddly ventriloquist puppets, through which they can mouth their own misanthropic views about industry and economic growth. The myth of the desolate bear reveals two things about the politics of environmentalism: first, that it's underpinned by a simplistic, anthropomorphic view of good vs evil, which most of us grew out of before we hit our teens; second, that it frequently bends the facts to fit the fable.

Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide
Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is
Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.
Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.
Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.
Eat meat raw - Whether your using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.
Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.
Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.
Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.
Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year your not here!

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.
Petition Project

No comments: