American Republic Online

Mark Steyn reinforces our notion that the global warming alarmists have been overrun by people who only want to control others’ behavior:

It’s fascinating to observe how almost any old totalitarian racket becomes respectable once it’s cloaked in enviro-hooey. For example, restrictions on freedom of movement were previously the mark of the Soviet Union et al. But in Britain, they’re proposing limits on your right to take airline flights to other countries - and, as it’s in the name of environmental responsibility, everyone thinks it’s a grand idea.

I sure hope the stuffy VP, turned eco-rock-star is feeling his oats today. Who could have predicted that Al would actually win the coveted Nobel Peace Prize?

Let’s look at the Gore plan for success:

1. Set up camcorder in basement
2. Record yourself giving lecture
3. Market lecture video as “a movie”
4. Become jet-setting movie star
5. Win Nobel Prize

The truly sad part (beyond winning a Nobel Peace Prize for self making a lecture movie) are the high number of inaccuracies contained in his work. The following excerpt is from The New Party web site (a liberal UK party). Read the rest of this entry »

This special report from the Business & Media Institute is a little old (May 06), but it’s quality and impact are unmatched. The report quite simply decimates the entire climate change hysteria. Warming or otherwise.

Thanks to the release of Al Gore’s latest effort on global warming – this time in book and movie form – climate change is the hot topic in press rooms around the globe. It isn’t the first time.

The media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the last 100 years. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the aftermath of the bridge collapse tragedy, we have some interesting theories on the real reason for the catastrophic failure, because government mismanagement and incompetence seem so far fetched as to stretch credulity.

My favorite theory is by Joseph Romm former Clinton Administration official and now a senior fellow at the Clinton founded Center for American Progress. He asks “Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?” Now before you doubt his premise, consider how his own in depth research swayed his own ideas on the matter:

I was skeptical at first, but after doing a Google search — and after NBC reported Sunday that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are “looking at everything” including “the weather” — I think it is a legitimate question to ask.

That’s right: a google search. Oh and a news report mentioning the word “weather”. Joseph didn’t become a senior fellow for nothing. Further review of this breakthrough is additionally entertaining. Romm goes on to compile further evidence: the channel 4 weatherman’s blog and a local resident’s thoughts - it was a hot summer. Joseph dismisses a structural engineer’s thoughts on his growing theory and instead offers his own: did engineers really design bridges to withstand the extreme 90 degree summer heat? Where such extremes really foreseeable?

Read the rest of this entry »

That’s right, now the “experts” are saying that it actually pollutes our planet it more to walk than drive… Speechless? Well don’t let common sense block you to the intellectual intricacies that is modern ecological thought.

The problem with walking, is that you burn calories doing it.  And since only a few environmentalist favor letting us die to save the planet (Voluntary Human Extinction Movement), you need to replace those used  calories though eating food.  Now the truth becomes apparent.  The food we eat is polluting more than the cars we drive.

I’m not making this up.  But the problem goes beyond the actual processing of the food, it’s the growing of the food that really racks up the global warming inducing gases.  Now I know what many of you are saying… how can a cow - nature itself - pollute the planet?  The answer is in the definition of pollution.  Thanks to the scientists on the US Supreme Court, CO₂ is now considered a pollutant.    Which is how a typical “1kg of meat [can] cost the Earth 36kg in global warming gases” (CO₂), because cows -well- they breath a lot during their lifetime.

Cows, in fact, are among what those in the industry call double polluters.  That’s right cows also produce methane!  “The gas, released during the digestive process, is 21 times more harmful than CO₂.” I would call the 21x more of an average, because I personally would rate a really bad cow fart as 50x or even 100 times as bad as their breath. Read the rest of this entry »

The Daily Show demonstrates hypocrisy, and shows that the Global Warming Emergency really isn’t.  If our world was about to tip over the precipice, seeing wind turbines on the horizon would be a small price to pay.  Here’s a hint: don’t say “the debate is over” and then refuse to allow for real, differential change.  The alarmism is unfruitful and turns too many people off.  Why is it that everything is going to bring the end of the world?

MSNBC has a list of reporters who gave to political campaigns. Of the 144 listed, 18 gave to Republicans/conservative causes. 126 gave to Democrats/liberal causes (2 gave to both). The so-called “mainstream media” has a liberal bias. Really? Maybe they should all disclose their biases when reporting on issues. The BBC has done it. Instead of pretending they are “objective” just tell the truth. I think this would give them more credibility, and would most likely drive them to make sure that everything is presented “fairly,” since they will obviously be under a lot more scrutiny.

The same problem exists in science. Scientists present their findings (and we accept them) as unbiased, objective. But the problem remains that they are people. And everyone has a unique perspective, and brings a measure of bias to everything (no matter how small). We are certainly not allowed to get away with saying we are objective. Try going up to a stranger on the street and telling them that you can be perfectly objective. What if someone told you that? Would you believe them? Why do certain professions get a free pass?

It would not take much: simply putting a paragraph or so on the web.  It would be unreasonable and unfortunate to have to do some sort of disclaimer during broadcasts or printed stories.  But making the information available to those who would find it useful would go a long way.  As pointed out above, disclosure would lead to more credibility.  And, it would provoke more scrutiny, and thus more thoroughness by those that we place so much trust in.  This would, in turn, lead to, hopefully, more understanding all around.

This article is quite simply: GREAT. The much vaunted by eco-snobs Toyota Prius, apparently pollutes enough to give a tree-hugger nightmares. If you know someone with a Prius, you really owe it to yourself to print out this article, give it to them, and say “HAHAHAHAHA!”.

A serious laugh really is deserved here. While the average Prius purchaser’s intent was to be better than other people and save the planet, they in fact wasted money and energy while helping to kill helpless animals in Canada.

The best part? Guess which car soundly spanks the hybrid in eco-friendliness when you also consider construction and lifespan in addition to fuel economy…. That’s right: The Hummer.

Below are snippets, check the link for the full text. Read the rest of this entry »

John Kasich, a guest host for O’Reilley, proved himself to be a blithering idiot while holding down the fort yesterday. Here’s the setup: A new creation museum opened on Monday and “Fair & Balanced” Fox wanted to show both sides. So they got Ken Ham head of the museum and Lawrence Krauss an evolutionary scientist against the museum to “debate”.

Each man opened with their positions basically: a 4.5 Billion year old Earth & Genesis is a just a story verses a 6 Thousand year old Earth & the Bible account is literally true. It could have been a good debate, unfortunately John Kasich didn’t like either position and set out to bring BOTH men over to HIS view.

Now while most school children could point out how these two men held diametrically opposed views, Kasich asked Ham “Why is it not acceptable that evolution and creationism can be compatible?” Ham responded that while many people held Kasich’s theistic evolution view, “Evolution and a literal Genesis are not compatible…”

Kasich then interrupts and says “But maybe a literal Genesis is not the deal here.” I have to stress here that John is saying this to the man that just opened a 27 million dollar museum dedicated to the view that scientific evidence supports a literal six day creation. I mean, does John Kasich have ANY knowledge of the people he’s interviewing?

Read the rest of this entry »