TheGalvestonSurge's Blog

AL GORE AND GLOBAL WARMING
Posted: (July 25, 2008 01:00 pm)   After watching Al Gore's appearance on Meet the Press I finally found the inspiration for my next blog.

If you had the pleasure of watching this interview, then you got to see a financially motivated politician at his best (or worst).

First off, Greenie Al suggested that we must find a way to get off fossil fuels within 10 years.  Now anyone who has any clue about how the world works knows that we won't be able to do this in 100 years let alone 10.  Still, it's a great 'sky is falling' tactic to push his agenda. Of course a drastic shift of energy policy would be devestating to poverty stricken areas that aren't financially equipped to change over (Oil is used to heat a large percentage of homes in the US).  Here are a few other things to analize from his conversation.


" There`s enough solar energy that hits the surface of the planet in 40 minutes to provide a full year`s worth of energy for the entire world."

Really?  Now all we have to do is figure out how to harness said energy.  Of course that alone is impossible.  
This is a twist on the argument that the wind and sun are free, but the problem is solar power and wind power are terribly expensive.  In order to harness solar electricity you have to restring the entire power grid.  By the way, this costs roughly $2 million per mile.   I don't know about you, but I consider the United States a pretty big place.....In addition, to power the US, we'd need to solar panel 4.5 billion homes....ummm....that's a lot!


"There`s really not a debate in the mainstream scientific community. It is the most serious threat that our civilization has ever faced. Look at the fires out in California right now, look at the epic flooding in the Midwest."

Really?  Wow, there had never been fires in the west and flooding in the Midwest prior to global warming  SOUND THE ALARMS!!!!  Afterall, this is the most serious threat to face humanity since the last most serious threat to face humanity.  Remember the 'mainstream scientific communities' claims of global cooling in the 1970's?  The problem is these floods come after very cold, very wet snowy winters and so you have a lot of stored frozen water that will melt. It does that in a period of time called summer.  The fact is that the 1930's were actually a warmer period than this and there were FEWER fires during that period.

"The entire polar icecap, Tom, been there three million years, it`s the size of the lower 48 states and the scientists now say that there`s a 75 percent chance it will be completely gone during the summer in as little as five years. This is happening on our watch. We have got to respond"

Bad news Al (well, for you).  He did this throughout his movie. This statement is based on a computer model the spin of which the author even ran away from; his name is Mark Sarees.  It claims that there`s a chance that the North Pole could be ice free. Remember, greenhouse warming says both poles would be warming first. Well, the South Pole is cooling and gaining ice mass at a fairly rapid clip. The North Pole, of course, we have more than 10 percent more ice today than we did a year ago on this date. They`re relying upon 2007, really, when there was a Siberian high pressure anomaly and they`re still trying to scare you off of that.  Also note that ocean temps over the last five years are actually DECREASING.  

A few fun facts on Al Gore the hypocrite.  
Gores home uses 20 times the national average of electricity consumption.
Gore argues that by buying so-called 'carbon credits' he offsets his energy use....One problem....the company those credits are bought from.....is owned by Al Gore.
 

Eleven known inaccuracies of 'An Inconvenient Truth'

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA


An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the waronly of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

MORE

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'

MORE

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Developing...



The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress."Even more heartening has been progress that?s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City" actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding? trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn"t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we?ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the ?Mission Accomplished? banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war?only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

The headline's a pretty good question and the answer is just plain irritating.

Congress is taking their hypocrisy to new heights.  Freddie and Fannie are government-run mortgage companies. Their near failure is the government`s fault. 

Do you remember the Enron scandal? You know, the televised hearings? Congress burned these guys at the stake for cooking their books, which they should have. They were cooking their books to the tune of $567 million, right? That`s Enron.

Fannie Mae was doing the same thing, except with them, we`re talking about $6.3 billion. Where were the hearings? That means a government institution screwed us 12 times as bad as the evil Enron. Only Fannie`s executives aren`t in jail or dead like Ken Lay. There were no congressional hearings. These guys kept their jobs!!!!!!

Currently, the head of Fannie gets over $11 million a year. The head of Freddie gets $18 million a year. And the guy who was at the head of Fannie while all this stuff was going down, he`s resting comfortably on his retirement of $110,000 -- a month. A month. And Congress is outraged at the oil executive salaries!!!

 

IMMIGRATION, Where Both Parties Have Failed..and It May Be On Purpose!!!!  Part II

 

Okay, so let's see, where did we leave off.  Oh yeah,  your country's sovereignty was being sold down the river by cavier CEO's and Politicians (either party may apply). 

While talk of a NAFTA superhighway has been strongly denied by government officials, it has roundly been acknowledged by Mexican poiticians.  We've mentioned key groups that have been assembled (under seperate pretenses) to 'explore' taking NAFTA a step (or more) further.  We so far have the SPP, the NACC, NASCO (North American SuperCorridor Coalition Inc) and the CFR.  Slowly the pieces are coming together for what many would call a North American Union.  The erasing of borders, as well as this country's rich history.  What's more concerning is just how this whole scheme has been set up without nary a report to the public.  The lovely thing about meetings with even public figures is, that as long as they paid travel expenses from their own pocket......it's not a matter of public record.  How about some disturbing quotes....

"We're grateful to the Washington Post, New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.  It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years.  But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government" -  David Rockefeller, Chairman of the CFR (1970-1985)

WOW!  Have you ever heard such a high ranking public figure make it so apparent that a true conspiracy theory may be unraveling before our eyes?  He's practically, no not practically....BOLDLY telling the world!

And look who agree's.....

remember on the previous chapter when I mentioned the CFR and it's memo "Building a North American Union"?.  You know, the document that states the SPP must create a "North American Community by 2010"?  Well.....

Enrique Berruga, during a panel discussion on US-Mexico relations in November 2006 said a North American Union was not only needed but MUST be finished before the US baby boomer retirement wave hits in eight years.  Who's Enrique Berruga?  A conspiracy liberal nut?  Nope, he's Mexico's ambassador to the United States.

So who's pulling the strings here?  We have four completely seperate entities that seem to all be pushing for a very common, yet controversial, conclusion. 

Meet Robert Pastor. Mr. Pastor is a FAR left wing nut who is a Professor of International Relations at American University.  As one of the country's foremost experts on "North American Integration", he has been requested by the Canadian Parliment and the US senate foreign relations commitee to talk about that very same CFR report (NAU by 2010). While he refers to conspiracy theorists as 'nut jobs' and denies a NAU is in the works, his quote in Canada suggests something different.

"The three governments remain zealous defenders of an aging conception of sovereignty, whereas the people seem ready to entertain new approaches"

How can these people be saying things like this while the media turns a blind eye?  An "aging conception of sovereignty"? You mean like a constitution? Borders?  government? Citizens?

Amongst Pastors suggestions to the Canadian Parliment....

     1. $20 billion a year for 10 years, dedicated to building rails and roads to connect the southern most point of Mexico to the lucrative North American market

      2. Expansion of the Department of Homeland Security to protect the entire continent

      3.  EZ pass for North American Citizens to quickly and easily pass through the borders

     4.  Merging of US and Canadian immigration and refugee policies

SHEESH, and to think people mistakenly thought he was in favor of a North American Union...what nut jobs!  Pastor goes on to suggest that the Canadian government try to pressure 'influential sectors' of the US to convince them to take on a more 'collabrative relationship'. 

Now we've mentioned four of those 'influential sectors' but there are others, and Pastor is the link between all of them......

TO BE CONTINUED......NEXT UP....THE NORTH AMERICAN FORUM. The power in the dark.

After listening to the media canonize Tim Russert for nearly two weeks, the Associated Press then took a cheap shot at the recently deceased Tony Snow.  Typical.

 

Classless AP Takes Cheap Shots at Just-Passed Snow By Tom Blumer (July 12, 2008 - 09:03 ET

At long last, has the Associated Press lost all sense of decency?

The AP's story (saved here for future reference in case the wire service is embarrassed into revising it; you might consider saving it too as Exhibit A on how far over the cliff the dinosaur media has driven itself) by Douglass K. Daniel, with Jennifer Loven contributing (I might have known), gets in at least three cheap, fundamentally untrue, and totally uncalled-for shots at Tony Snow, who died earlier this morning.

I won't sully NB's front page with any of them. They follow the jump:

With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses.

..... During daily briefings, he challenged reporters, scolded them and questioned their motives as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing.

Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.

 

Godspeed Tony. I'm sure God will take an objective view of your life, and you'll waltz right in to be with Him for eternity.

Otherwise, words fail. How dare they?

I'll let commenters supply them."

 

 

To make matters worse, the Los Angeles Times published a few liberal write-in's to ask if Snow would be 'burried in a Nazi suit'.

Head of the AP Mr. Curley says he 'stand's by their comments'.

 

 

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but this one is at the very least a good read.  Strap on your tin foil anti-mind reading hats and come along with me for a moment.  Most of this information is borrowed from different sources, but it all fits together nicely for an X-Files kinda read, but this one may be VERY REAL.

"Thousands of Mexican's Illegally Cross U.S. Border Each Month"

It's probably not surprising where that headline was published (the Los Angeles Times) but what may be surprising is WHEN it was published: 1950.

Whether it was a Democrat or Republican in office, nearly 60 years of administrations have failed to stop the flow and fix the problem. From petty fines, to partially built fences, to lame floor rhetoric in Congress, three two term presidents with nothing left to lose, several administrations with same party congressional assembly's, No one has stopped immigration.  Why?  Maybe they (Dems and Rep) simply don't want to.  Why would politicians on both sides constantly ignore the overwhelming public opinion that something must be done?  Perhaps it's because they're not really the one's in charge.

After two meetings in March of 2005 between US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Secretary of Economy Fernando Canales and Canadian Privy Council Phil Ventura, they happily announced the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.  It was announced that in order to compete with foreign countries, "a New Generation of our continent's success must be forged.  The SPP is the road map for getting there"

Funny thing though.  There is no law authorizing the creation or funding of the SPP, no congressional committee to oversee it's activities, and very little public knowledge of it's existance.  Consider the SPP as the potential mimic of the early stages of the European Union.  As said by Howard Phillips(Chairman of the Conservative Caucus)  "the SPP, through it's working groups,  is crafting a North American regulatory structure that transforms US regulations by 'harmonizing' them with Mexican and Canadian regulations, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL."

Wha are thos working groups?  Meet your new government...(potentially speaking of course)

North American Competitiveness Council-in charge of finding ways to strengthen the SPP the member list is a powerful one J. Gilmour (NY LIFE), William Ford (Ford, duh), Rick Wagoner (GM), Ray Gilmartin (merk), David O'Reilly (Chevron), Jeff Immelt (GE), H. Lee Scott (Walmart), Robert Stevens (Lockeed Martin), Douglas Conant (Campbells Soup), and the list goes on from the US.  The list from Mexico and Canada is just as powerful.

The media has been kept largely in the dark about these groups but one reporter for Maclean's did manage to speak w/ some member of the NACC after their first meeting described the group as a "cherry picked group of executives who were whisked to Cancun by the leaders of Canada, US, and Mexico to come up with a plan for taking North American Intergration BEYOND NAFTA"

Per Ron Covais (president of Lockheed Martin the worlds largest weapons manufacturer)-"We've decided not to recommend any of our ideas that would require legislative changes because we won't get anywhere"

Per Linda Hasenfraitz (CEO of Linamar) "Let's get some low-hanging fruit to give the thing some momentum, but let's not lose sight of bigger ticket items"

Now for a group asked to take the three countries 'beyond NAFTA', you have to ask yourself what those big ticket items are and what bait (low-hanging fruit) would be used to get us there?

Enter the CFR (Council For Foreign Relations)- It contains such members as Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson, Condoleezza Rice, Conlin Powell, George Soros, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton).  It is a legit group that has existed since 1921 but what's alarming is how easily corruptable it is.  Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton's mentor) stated the following "The CFR is the American Branch of societywhich originated in England and believes national boundries should be eliminated" .  In 2005 the CFR presented their memo "Building a North American Union".  In that document the report specifically mentions the SPP and more alarmingly states "The Task force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American Community to enhance security, prosperity and oppurtunity.  It's boundaries will be defined by common external tariffs and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products and capitlal will be legal, orderly and safe.  It's goal will be to guarantee a free secure just and prosperous North America"

YIKES, did they really say that?  You bet they did.  But will anyone take it seriously?  THEY ALREADY HAVE.  The report recommended a "North American Advisory Council composed of eminent persons from outside government to provide a public voice for North America."  Feel free to scroll back to the NACC.  The report also called for a 'Freer flow of people within North America."

No need to worry about being illegal if no one is illegal.

ENTER THE NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY.  The government has already started a pilot program for Mexican truckers to travel freely into the US for the first time in nearly 30 years.  Some fear the three countries plan to build a highway capable of  free travel through North America.  The government denies such dealings but NASCO (North American SuperCorrider Coalition has already received $2.5 million from the US Department of Transportation. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

 

to be continued........ Next Up...Robert Pastor.....our new founding father

I've gotten a big kick out of reading some posts blaming 'Big Oil' and Speculators for the rise in oil prices.  Meanwhile OPEC continues to hijack the prices and laugh away as we point fingers at the only source that can save us, the oil companies themselves.

I've already touched on our alternatives.  Now for the here and now....

So you think Oil Speculators are to blame?  WRONG.  Here are a few links that will tell you why the Speculators have little to do with oil costs....

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?s
ource=hptextfeature&story_id=11670357

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/6/27/6-m
yths-about-oil-speculators.html

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/birger
_oil_speculation.fortune/index.htm?postversion=20080627
09

 

Each of these articles go on to explain that the speculators do not hold a physical share of oil inventory and are actually softening the blow of oils ever increasing prices.  One statement actually explains that without Speculators, oil prices would likely be over $200 a barrel right now.  Speculators job is to predict the price of oil that OPEC will set.  They then lock in that price for investors.  If they are inaccurate in their estimate, they lose their shirts.  Also remember that for every Speculator that estimates a buy on rising prices, there has to be another one on the other side of the transaction.

Now, regardig profits for oil companies.
The oil companies do not come even remotely close to setting the price of oil and gasoline. They either benefit from high prices or get hurt by low prices, but they do not set the price. The largest oil company in the U.S. (a piker compared with many foreign companies) controls less than 3 percent of the world's oil. Does that offer a clue on how prices get set?
Meanwhile, why is it so bad for oil companies to make a profit, even a big profit? That profit doesn't go into the pockets of Dr. Evil. It doesn't go to Saddam Hussein (not anymore). It goes to tens of millions of stockholders who use the dividends and the increase in share price to pay for their RV's and retirements and their (ungrateful) kids' college education. Anyone can purchase stock and become a profiteer of big oil.
Then a huge slice of the profits go to federal and state taxes, running into the tens of billions of dollars. Oil companies in general pay between 30 and 40 percent of their profits in tax!!!!!  It's estimated that Oil prices account for close to 50% of gas prices.  The other portion is often determined by state and federal taxes.  That's right, your government is making money off your oil dismay while paying lip service and blaming Speculators.  How convenient. 

If we want to fix the oil problems, there are two things we must NOT do.  First, DO NOT ADD WINDFALL TAXES ON OIL COMPANIES.   As I mentioned, those profits are already heavily taxed enough and end up leading to higher prices while also effecting the dividend checks of millions of people like you and I. 

SECOND, STOP WITH THE TALK OF NATIONALIZING OUR OIL.  From the same fools who brought you nationalized healthcare, we have nationalized oil.  I can't wait to see how a  government who can't resist special interest money would react when they in fact control the source of that money.  It's sort of like giving Britney Spears the keys to the liquor cabinet.

 

Rising Prices and the Real Story of Our Failure...
Posted: (May 22, 2008 12:09 pm)  

Just my two cents on energy issues that are self-inflicted.  Blame big oil, blame your president, blame your congress but there may be others at fault that you haven't thought of.

Here's the news you already know.  Our gas prices are soaring at rates that reach far beyond our own budgets.  While blaming Oil companies has become the easy cliche approach there are less obvious culprits that we must overcome if we are to lasso this issue.

The biggest issue is, THE WORLD WILL EVENTUALLY RUN OUT OF OIL.  I know, that sounds like a doomsday/sky is falling senario but it's actually true.  Here's a quick test.  Can you name what country is currently the number one supplier of oil to the US?  The answer may surprise you.  It's Canada.  Coming in a close second is Mexico.  Saudi Arabia comes in at number 3.  'What's the difference you say?  It's simple.  Our number one and two suppliers of Oil are US friendly countries. 

     Now for the scary part.  In 2004 a report suggested that Mexico's Cantarell Oil Field (the 2nd largest in the world) was nearing it's peak.  As of 2006 that field had reached it's peak and was actually starting to decline.  Some have suggested the field could be dried by 2011 based on present demands with even more radical predictions killing the field by 2009.  Now think for a second.  40% of Mexico's National economy is based on their Oil exports.  If that portion af their market were to begin to collapse, their whole structure would suffer causing an economic meltdown that would send record amounts of people accross the boarder.  Part two of that problem is that the US would then be forced to pursue that oil from countries that might not be quite as US friendly.   Eventually this would cause prices to skyrocket closer to the near $10.50 a gallon that London sees. 

 

Issue number two.  The US has become held hostage by environmentallist radicals that have managed to guilt us into policies that restrain our true capitalist foundation.  Let's look at the irony.  The US has banned exploratory drilling on nearly all our coastlines and Alaska.   Why? Fear.  Look at the other countries that are drilling for their oil and prospering.  China & Russia are two countries that are having great economic recoveries based on their domestic policies.  Norway, perhaps the biggest tree-hugging country in the world is drilling off their coasts.  The US has allowed itself to be 'guilted' into being the moral fiber of the world while other countries sneak about for profit (think Oil for food trade). There are OTHER countries drilling directly off the coast of Florida where we refuse. (China) 

 

Issue number three-COAL TO FUEL.  The United States is the Saudi Arabia of Coal.  Not even China has the coal resources the US has, in fact they're running out.  The United States must pursue building coal to oil factories.  Our ability to use coal to fuel technology would give us a large enough domestic supply that we could begin to satisfy our own oil inventories.  Doing things like this would allow us to almost completely sever our ties with the unstable middle east.  Understand this soloution is NOT A PERMANENT FIX but it would buy us enough time to develop something that would be.  Which brings me to point number

 

FOUR-ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.  This is where good intentions go bad.  Folks like Al Gore foolishly suggested we have mandatory national conversions to alternative energy.  The US economy isn't able to change on a dime like that.  How many of you can afford to go out tomorrow and replace all your vehicles with hybrid cars?  Hell, plenty of those vehicles batteries have been deemed more dangerous to the environment than the vehicles they replaced.  Environmentallists blindly champion this technology while riding a wave of hypocracy to prevent the development of our most overlooked technology.  NUCLEAR POWER.  Think nuclear power and you might likely think of Homer Simpson driving his car past a lake with some three-eyed fish.  This is the stereotype but not the reality.  In US history there ahs been but one Nuclear accident (three mile Island).  This situation was so overblown that it's almost hilarious.  A failing reactor cooling system alerted authorities of the potential break down in the reactor.  Per the NRC (Nuclear Reglatory Commision) report "the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was about 1 millirem.  To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest xrays is about 6 millirem.   Stil, we've ben baited into believing that this technology is dangerous when in fact it is some of the safest energy resources we have.  Even France is building record amounts of Nuclear Reactors.

 

So the solutions are there but not likely to be pursued.  Miles of red tape have surrounded our countries policies to prevent us from becoming self-reliant.  Eventually someone will come along and develop a synthetic fuel or biocarbon alternative but we are on the brink of crisis.  Alterntative fuels have been developed in the past and OPEC has managed to drop their prices to the point that they killed those competitors off.  Our very addiction to oil could some day lead us to full economic dependence on countries that would prefer to see us fail.  Rather than treating our oil companies like villians, it's time to allow them to take on the role of the hero.

"In the worlds broad field of battle

In the bivouac of life

Be not like dumb, driven cattle

be a hero in the strife!"

-The Psalm of Life

 

It's amazing when you consider how much easier it is to drive the herd rather than the individual.  The tune of alarmists can often resonate simply because alarmism attracts masses, builds and snowballs.  Present an alarming tale to one one who believes and you have a listener.  Present an alarming tale to thousands who believe and repeat and you have an epidemic.  Believers created by other believers.  Thus is my view on the continuing debate of global warming.  While folks look for A/B answers, the truth likely remains quite the bit more complex.  False profits who believe themselves to be elitists discount any theory challenging what to them has become simple deduction.    Gain your following and credibility suddenly becomes secondary. Let the overall message outweigh the evidence.

Example?  The Weather Channel's "Dr" Heidi Cullen (Climate Expert...roll eyes here)  wrote a blog several months ago which actually suggested the AMS (American Meteorological Society) should begin to take a dictatorial stance towards local Meteorologists who refuse to conform with the idea that global warming is a man made event.  You can almost hear the Imperial March music (aka Darth Vader tune) kick in as she goes on to suggest that the AMS actually refuse to license Mets who disagree with the 'Man is at total fault' theory.  Considering Cullen is a key figure at TWC and actually oversees the content on their broadband channel, it is a bit concerning that such a closed minded approach is taken by an educator of society. But there it is, our educators are flawed like the rest of us.  Educators are flawed by theories that require masses to simply believe without studying all the events.   Theories that can only be proven over thousands of years yet must be formulated in a single generation.  Some like to read the headlines, others read the entire story.  Some question both and try to search for the facts before providing a conclusion. 

Climateologists claim that Meteorologists are short-sighted and only study the here and now while they are true students of the whole game.  Funny thing about that is that these very same scientists are basing most of their info on 400,000 years of ice.  Problem is the earth is over 4 billion years old.  Climatologists number one argument for man's influence on global warming? CARBON.  Elevated amounts of Carbon Dioxide have led some of the Chicken Little Community to scream from roof tops without accepting an oppositional point of view.  

Here's one response I read and really thought put a hole in the carbon theories. 

"In West Virginia, fern fossil imprints can be found when blasting out coal. The reason for the imprints? The carbon dioxide level during that epoch was so high that the ferns trees did not decompose like plants do in the modern era of comparatively low atmospheric carbon dioxide. Whole valleys would fill with the dead but undestroyed material during that time. These ancient plants today form coal veins. Sun cycles , variation in solar output, is causing our oceans to warm and cool. This drives Earth's temperature and ultimately the weather. Our orbit in space is perfectly distanced from the sun. Any further in or out away would burn or freeze Earth. Solar input would change as a consequence. Hotter sun = warmer oceans=climate change. As a coincidence, the output of carbon dioxide and methane from machines and agriculture is warming the Earth. This man-made warming must be correlated with the greater force of the solar-ocean relationship as described above. When the solar-ocean data is taken into account, the small warming due to our activities will be insignificant when the sun cycle causes the Earth to cool. This will then negate warming from the carbon dioxide. If the earth cools -2 C and warms -.4 C due to CO2, the Earth will still have cooled -1.6 C. Past carbon dioxide levels have been higher then now. The sun has been warmer and cooler than now. Any concerns about global warming must be analyzed through the greater relationships at hand "

Now before you read this and decide that my blogging rights should be revoked by the AMS, keep in mind that I do believe man can potentially have a negative impact on the planet's climate.  It is our responsibility to take good care of our surroundings and ensure that our future generations will be able to preserve this miracle of a planet. I have no doubt that saving rain forrests is a good thing.  Adding green rooftops (roofs with vegatation) is a positive.  Finding alternative fuels, recycling, etc etc.  But before you go fooling yourself into thinking we're going to save mankind by doing these things, consider that perhaps like it's inhabitants, the earth is simply evolving.  Our solutions will not be found by being dumb driven cattle who follow the call of the common alarmist, but by being individual hero's who considered all the possiblities.

Note: I actually wrote this in early September but never posted it....I felt it a waste to just delete.

 

     In most cases public reaction to an outrageous decision is just that.....a reaction.  It tends to be a 'reaction' because the public was never given the oppurtunity of 'preaction', considering that the information is likely in the rumor stage.  Perhaps this can be a platform for discussion and the eventual preventative measures of losing a well respected personality as well as Fox 29 losing said personalities' VERY LARGE following. 

     What we know at this point this is based soley off of rumors through the media and well calculated hints tossed on a certain radio-media format.   I would warn that my own suspicions and ideas on this matter are simply my translations of the rumor mill.  The truth is in the story, but the details may be inaccurate. 

In 2003 NBC 10 Meteorologist John Bolaris left Philadelphia after being ridiculed by the local population for the big miss of the 2001 Blizzard that was never to bee.  He returned to CBS 2 in his home town of New York.  Eventually Bolaris would be bumped to the weekend night met position in favor of the plastic Lonnie Quinn (not a met but a Soap Opera Star...It's NY go figure).   Bolaris appeared on the Preston and Steve show on 93.3 WMMR on September 12th, 2007, he made reference to coming back some time in the new year.  Local rumors have Bolaris either going back to NBC 10 or else joining the FOX 29 crew as the Chief Meteorologist by January 1, 2008.

So Johnny wants to come marching home.  First of all, this is not meant as a slight against Bolaris but more of a support issue for both Rob Guarino and David Alderich.  IF Guarino's contract is set to expire at the end of this year (and I assume it would be the root of the Bolaris to Fox rumor) then one would assume that Fox's lack of public comment other than "they have no announcments regarding Bolaris at this time" is likely a negotiating tactic for dealing with Guarino.  The greater concern becomes that they are also gauging public interest for the buzz of a Bolaris return.  It's style over substance.  Guarino is largely regarded as the most accurate met in town having been honored for such a distinction over the past four consecutive years as well as "National Broadcaster of the year” in 2004  from the National Weather Service.  Meanwhile Bolaris is seen as the hip guy that drives his Porsche through the Philly Suburbs thinking of his hair rather than an accurate forecast.  Fox is giving up on it's reputation as an accurate dependable weathercast, and heading straight for Teenybopper Alley.  I, for one, won't be paying that toll.  Tell us where to go Mr. Guarino.....we're here because of you, we'll leave because of you. 

Will Fox get the message from it's viewers that we don't want anyone other that Rob G.

 

Where did Galveston Go?  That's the question no one is asking.  My over involvement coupled with fatigue towards melow-dramatic moments on this blog lead me to go into semi-retirement.  Some great folks are on this blog. RobBen, Dan888, Snobunny, JerseyJoe, Snowbrain, Thundertush, Schnee, Gordo, Dadeck, Live2ski, Pocono, JSR, PSUmet, Carlisle etc.....you are the folks that made it worth coming in.  It's unlikely that I'll speak with more than one or two of you for some time but I do want to assure you it's been a pleasure!

Recent reports from the Denver Zoo suggest that a Capuchin monkey was found dead as result of being infected by the Bubonic Plague.  While recent stories of the eroding bee population caused a stir for the doomsayers this one is certainly going to gain plenty of attention. 

What is the Bubonic Plague?

The Bubonic Plague is mainly a disease of rodents and fleas. Infection in a human occurs when a person is bitten by an infected flea who bit an infected rodent, who was originally bitten by another infected flea. The bacteria multiply inside the flea, sticking together to form a plug that blocks its stomach and causes it to begin to starve. The flea then voraciously bites a host and continues to feed, even though it can not fulfill its hunger, and consequently the flea vomits blood tainted with the bacteria back into the bite wound. The bubonic plague bacterium then infects a new host, and the flea eventually dies from starvation. Any serious outbreak of plague is usually started by other disease outbreaks in rodents, or some other crash in the rodent population. During these outbreaks, infected fleas that have lost their normal hosts seek other sources of blood.

If untreated, the rate of mortality for bubonic plague is 50-90%

Pneumonic plague mortality rates are 95% (untreated) while Septicemic plagues mortality rate is near 100%.

Since the third great outbreak of the plague in the late 1800's treatments have dramatically improved.  Recent use of Gentamicin and Doxycycline have been highly effective.  The trick is detection.  The Plague can often kill a person (or animal) the same day that symptoms first become apparent. 

There are major differences between the existance of the bubonic plague and the previous three Pandemics.  First of all, the term Bubonic plague has been misused over the years.  Unlike it's relatives (Pneumonic and Septicemic) the Bubonic plague is not airborne or transferred through human contact.  In addition, the bubonic plague can only survive between temps of 50dgs and 78 dgs. 

Reported cases in animals aren't completely out of the norm in modern times.  In 2006 a few infected mice 'escaped' from a lab in New Jersey.  A lab tech in Los Angeles supposedly had a case which was successfully treated.  Many other cases have been reported over the last 50 years but no Pandemics like the Black Death pandemic have occurred. 

So what does this mean?  For years terrorists and countries like the US and Soviet Union have experimented with various forms of the plague for use in warfare.  Japan actually experimented on Chinese and Korean civilians conducting inhumane experiements on live patients.  The fear of the plague has been compounding by the lack of understanding. It's almost like generalizing the term virus.  Certainly this situation deserves close attention however we shouldn't all break out and sing "Ring Around the Rosie" since the chances of a human case remain slim and a Pandemic almost impossible.  All three great pandemics were preceded by mass outbreaks amongst rats.  Think of how many more homes were infested with fleas in the 1800's and earlier than present day and there's your answer. 

 

We're a different breed, the weather junkie.  When folks want sun we want snow.  When they want warmth, we want cold.  What's that you were saying?  You were hoping for a nice calm summer evening.  Nahhhh, we want Severe Thunderstorms...maybe some hail, some thunder, lightning etc etc.  It's the extreme weather that we crave.  The chance to witness the fury of nature.  So now that Tstorm season is kicking in maybe you can understand our excitement. 

Years ago a friend of mine and myself used to chase thunderstorms on the Delmarva Peninsula just for fun.  After cheering on storms crossing the Chesapeake on radar we began to develop our own terminology.  Most of them are negative terms since they offer descriptions of storms that never panned out.

Here we go....

THE WAKE- It could be called the 'wave' but that term happens to be used already in weather.  The wake is like a little wave coming into the beach.  From afar it looks like a decent size but as it approaches shore it actually seems to die out and fizzle as it  breaks on shore.  This happens with a lot of storms in the Newark area.  A huge cell heads our way, but then it just disolves right at the DE/MD boarder.  I often explain to my wife that the storm simply realized that DE wasn't a place worth seeing. 

The Sandbar-Similar to 'The Wake', this one is the all to annoying storm that approaches with ferocity but suddenly fizzles out, only to restrengthen just after having passed the area.  Again this seems to happen quite often in this area.  Lots of times we have storms that approach Elkton looking like monsters, the fizzle into nothing and then build back into monsters as the hit New Jersey.

The Split-This one is perhaps the most annoying of all T Storms.  This type of action has actually led me to believe that there is a forcefield in place over the area.  If we could just get Han, Leah and the Ewoks down the the moon of Endor to take the forcefield down.....  The Split is when a decent line of thunderstorms or a single cell approach the area and actually split into two storms both passing to the North and South of your area.

The Tom & Jerry Split  It's like the Old Tom & Jerry moment where he approaches the tree on roller skates and then you just see his tracks going around both sides and reconverging on the otherside.  A cell approaches the area, splits around the area, then reconnects as it heads through Jersey.  Ugh.... 

The BJ-Very similar to "The Wake".  A Severe storm approaches and appears to be ready to nail the area but suddenly as it hits you just get some wind a little spray....hence the name.

Popcorn- You actually hear this term used all the time but back in 1985 when we were saying we thought we were being imaginative.  When you are watching radar with nothing in the area and suddenly little storms just pop up everywhere.  It's always a pleasant surprise.

The Invisible Storm-a storm that doesn't appear on radar and doesn't do anything to your particular area but suddenly it just pops up to your east moving away....

Beware of these storms, they'll leave the common weather freak depressed and searching for someone to yell at. 

 

 

 

 

Let's not let the current model runs blow us away with 969MB readings and heavy snow in the area.  As I said in my previous blog and countless times to everyone this one will be a coastal event for low lying and barrier islands.  It will also provide heavy RAIN inland. 

Personally I think the models have been far to bold with this one and are vastly overestimating many different factors.  Those factors?

1.  GFS shows the storm camping near Cape May for a couple of days....I HIGHLY DOUBT IT.  I think the storm will slowly drift off to the NE before pulling away.  It will be a sustained event but not like the good ol' GFS shows.

2.   I think places like Harrisburg are going to see the POTENTIAL for something signifigant but they could even be wet rain and mix. I really think the models are overestimating the amount of cold air this system will produce. You always hear folks say "A system that strong creates it's own cold air" which is true however there are many more factors than that. This is not a good time of year for measurable snow in the area.

3.  Overall storm strength. Let's face it, betting against a 969MB Nor' Easter is an 'odds on bet' so you could say I'm just being safe here.  Still, the models showed us a couple of Nor' Easters in the long range earlier in the year that had pressures in the 976MB range that never came close.  Once again, like my previous blog, it's the Great Pretender.

In closing I think we'll see some shifting but I'm not buying anything in the hype store unless it remains consistant through the Friday evening 00z GFS/NAM runs. 

My early call is heavy sustained winds in the 35-50MPH range with Higher gusts on the coast.  Signifigant eroision with moderate coastal flooding is a concern that could turn into major coastal flooding in low lying areas such as barrier isles.   In most of the FOX 29 Viewing area I say rain rain rain rain rain and lot's of it!  You can't rule out spotting a few flakes in it but the snow will be well west and North of the Philly area. 

I wrote 'part II' because I mistakenly erased part I.  I always find it funny how folks are willing to trade their credibility for their excitement of an upcoming storm.  For last weekends storm I had one person tell me it was going to snow in southern Jersey and it would accumulate "guaranteed!".  Another continually advertised his blog that predicted big snow.  We had bold predictions of 6-8 inches for the Salisbury/OC area from some.  I kept my predctions low and said that even the OC area would see less than 1-3 inches.  Why?  This time of year the models can tend to be their least dependable.  It seems the GFS and NAM fail to adapt to the changing of the season and therefore predict colder trends on the long range.  In short, someone needs to tap Mr. GFS on the shoulder and hand him the memo that our pattern is changing, water temps are warmer and the sun angle isn't favorable for measurable snow barring a historical event.  Historical events are 'historical' for a reason.....they are incredibly rare and require just the right circumstances to occur.

Then there are those who say.....DON"T FORECAST FROM MODEL TO MODEL!  GO BY TRENDS.  This is funny since the folks that typically say that are the one's screaming "HERE COMES THE SNOW" when the GFS shows a storm 11 days out.  Yes, trends are important, but you develop your trends by model to model observation.  One important trend to pay attention to is that the GFS and NAM have been TERRIBLE this season.  The VDay storm was originally going to be our big 20"+ snowfall that eventually became a Slizzard.  Other storms that we saw 2-4" coming only dropped an inch of slush.  Then came the last few weeks.........

In mid March folks started going nuts over the possiblilty of a APRIL FOOLS DAY STORM!  The GFS showed a major snow event and some jumped all over it. I told folks I didn't see it happening and they jumped all over me for it. Funny thing happened, after two days that storm disappeared and then it showed April 4th as D Day.  Suddenly it changed again and it was April 7th, then the 10th.  Now we turn our attention to Sunday April 15th.  The models are showing a very impressive Nor' Easter which could very well happen, but I tend to think it will be a little less severe than the models are indicating.  There also is the posibility that the majority of this storm hangs too far out.  We'll see.

The point is that the GFS has been showing mirages all season long.  You have a choice to make when posting bold predictions.  Do you post what you 'WANT' or what you truly 'THINK' will happen.  More often than not you will find the two differ.  The question is can you contain your excitement and see through the Great Pretender.