American Republic Online

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 »

Al Gore was booed while giving his world-famous Inconvenient Truth speech to a Canadian university. “Liar” and “villain” were yelled at Gore, as well as “What about your swimming pools?”

To which Gore offered this come-back: “I don’t even know if you guys are left- or right-wing.”

ARO is now a big-time blog. ARO recently posted a bit about a short article at the Scientific American. Here’s the cerfuffle: Mims at Scientific American defends his use of a recent Yale survey (he used the American public as his majority, not scientists): “My intent in posting that story was not to comment on the science of global warming–it was to point out that, whatever your opinion of the subject, an overwhelming majority of Americans are pretty freaked out about it.”

However, if you look closely, at the bottom, Mims refers to our very own ARO. He also throws around nasty words like “plagiarism.” Apparently Mims is not aware of linking as a way of referencing sources, and a convention of italicizing words instead of using quotation marks. And to be fair, in hindsight, we should have probably indented everything one more time to make the citation more apparent.

The story is reproduced below, for your review. We have since added an additional citation for the -uhm- link-handicapped. We meant no harm; We repent of our sins: forgive us our cavalier posts. But thanks for the traffic!

Reality Check (Link to OpinionJournal.com)

Read the rest of this entry »

Some thoughts on balancing the environment and profits from the Instapundit.  A good read.

There is another (!) skeptic of Earth-consuming global warming.  Climatologist Legates expresses doubts regarding the recent alarmism regarding global warming, calling the science inconclusive.  

Notice how he is presented by global catastrophe apostles: as "a favorite scientist of the global warming denial machine."  As Walter Williams recently pointed out, many compare skeptics to "holocaust deniers."  Some even say they should be tried for war crimes, a "climate Nuremberg."  It always comes back to Nazis doesn't it?  Why is it that when someone threatens your belief system, and you cannot answer the skepticism, it is ok to yell "Nazi!" and dismiss their criticism?  What happened to open debate, and individual opinion?  Thomas Sowell has commented on this very thing:

"It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic."

When we resort to name-calling, no real progress occurs.  If that is our best defense for your position, perhaps you should stop making sure your voice is the loudest in the room.  Or, better yet, form your own conclusion.  OR, better still, when you have nothing backing your opinion besides your own conviction, be honest and say "it's just what I believe."  This will end the conversation as effectively as calling someone a Nazi, and demonstrates to the other party the exact same thing: that your beliefs are based on emotion and not logic.  As anyone with a modicum of insight could see this, at least you're being honest with yourself.

Read the rest of this entry »

The verdict is in.  A new report coming out says we have 10 years left before the world is on an "irreversible" course towards destruction.  What does that mean?  Florida falling into the sea, cities spontaneous starting on fire…?  Who knows.

Well, I hate to burst their bubble, but Al Gore predicted that we only had 10 years left a year ago.  For those interested, Rush Limbaugh has a countdown to Doomsday on his webpage.  As you can see, we already have less than 9 years left…

Read the rest of this entry »

The UN has a new report out (assign whatever value you deem worthy here).  Apparently, they view the emissions from the world's cattle population as the most dangerous source of greenhouse gases.  In fact, 18% of greenhouse gases are derived from this population.  That's more than all forms of human transportation put together.  Clearly this menace must be controlled before they introduce the "alien species" the UN talks of.  

  Is this sportscar really all-electric? As it turns out, yes.  Tesla motors has created a sportscar that can go 0-60 in 4 seconds, with a top speed of 130mph, and runs on batteries.  And it goes 250 miles between charges.  Where has this car been?  Someone has finally realized that in order for there to be a market for alternative-fuel cars, they can't look like space pods.  People don't want to drive around in something that looks like that, it has to look like a car/truck.  Honda was the first, I think, to realize this, and made their Civic Hybrid look just like the regular Civic.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  If I went to a dealer and asked to see an electric car, and they pointed to one of those bubbles on wheels, I'd have to go test drive a V8 truck with 8 wheels just help wash the stain of its image from my mind.  

Now, Tesla has a vehicle that is being built by Lotus, actually drives a significant distance, and will keep up on the highway.  Any surprise they sold out so quickly (even though it costs $100k)?  This has been one of my biggest barriers to embracing the "alternative fuel" vehicles.  I need a car that's as reliable as my Toyota, has a decent amount of endurance between "fill-ups," and looks great.

Read the rest of this entry »