Obama: Gas Prices are High Because Climate Change Deniers Refuse to Tackle Global Warming


Obama: Gas Prices are High Because Climate Change Deniers Refuse to Tackle Global Warming.

Oh, but let us not forget the lessons of the very recent past!

March 2008Soros Invests $811 Million In Brazilian Oil

August 2009Obama Helps Soros Drill For Oil In Brazil

Then this happens:

and, “suddenly”, one year later…

March 2011 – Why is Brazilian Oil Giant Petrobras Pumping Oil Off America’s Gulf Coast?

It’s like Obama and Soros don’t even care that we can read their timeline for the destruction of America’s economic superiority and independence from foreign oil directly in the headlines of the news outlets.

So, what are you going to do about it?

Drudge Report: The Fix is In


Drudge dredged up some pretty disturbing quotes today…just a few minutes ago, in fact…about the relationship between Barack Obama, Cap and Trade legislation, and at least three major oil companies.  I’ll bet you can guess at least one.

BP America President and Chairman Lamar McKay: “BP supports an economy-wide price for carbon based on fair and equitable application across all sectors and believes that market based solutions, like a cap and trade or linked-fee, are the best solutions to manage GHG emissions.” (Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing, 6/15/10)

Shell President Marvin E. Odum: “That is why Shell supports legislating a solution to energy and climate issues as a means to create a secure U.S. energy future, reduce dependence on foreign oil and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. This requires setting a price for carbon, and we recommend cap and trade.” (Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing, 6/15/10)

ConocoPhillips CEO James J. Mulva: “Another key element of a comprehensive energy policy should be federal action to address global climate change. As you are aware, ConocoPhillips supports passage of a comprehensive federal law establishing a clear and transparent price for carbon.” (Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing, 6/15/10)

Natural oil spills happen every day…and have for thousands of years


Lest you buy into the media’s notion that oil in our oceans is as incompatible as…well…oil and water, I present you with information to disabuse you of such folk wisdom.

Science Daily reported in January 2000 that tons of oil seep into the Gulf of Mexico each year.

Using a technique they developed in the early 1990s to help explore for oil in the deep ocean, Earth Satellite Corporation scientists found that there are over 600 different areas where oil oozes from rocks underlying the Gulf of Mexico. The oil bubbles up from a cracks in ocean bottom sediments and spreads out with the wind to an to an area covering about 4 square miles.

“On water, oil has this wonderful property of spreading out really thin,” said Mitchell. “A gallon of oil can spread over a square mile very quickly.” So what ends up on the surface is an incredibly thin slick, impossible to see with the human eye and harmless to marine animals.

When oil spreads out over water, surface tension causes it to act like a super-thin sheet of Saran Wrap, flattening down small waves on the ocean surface. To spot the oil slicks, EarthSat scientists use radar data from Canadian and European satellites. The oil slicks stand out in the radar image because they return less of the radar signal than the wavy surfaces.

To get an estimate of how much oil seeps into the Gulf each year, the researchers took into account the thickness of the oil-only a hundredth of a millimeter, the area of ocean surface covered by slicks, and how long the oil remains on the surface before it’s consumed by bacteria or churned up by waves. “The number is twice the Exxon Valdez’s spill per year, and that’s a conservative estimate,” said Mitchell.

In May 2009, the International Society of Automation reported on the research of researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) who found that “Oil residue in seafloor sediments that comes from natural petroleum seeps off Santa Barbara, Calif., is equivalent to between 8 to 80 Exxon Valdez oil spills…”

There is an oil spill everyday at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara, where 20-25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years.

This has implications for climate change “science”, as it were.

Climate change “experts” claim that the breakdown of fossil fuels by human beings alone causes catastrophic global warming. But has anyone asked if they are taking into account the natural breakdown of oil seeping to the ocean surface every day for millennia? From the Science Daily article:

Oil that finds its way to the surface from natural seeps gets broken down by bacteria and ends up as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. So knowing the amount of fossil fuel that turns to carbon dioxide naturally is important for understanding how much humans may be changing the climate by burning oil and gas.

I’m not an apologist for BP. I think their handling of this has been poor to say the least. I’m in no way saying that the BP spill is not without consequences separate and apart from this seepage phenomenon. This is much more oil in a much more concentrated spot and amount per day than what is coming from natural seepage. The consequences to sea and land biology and ecosystems is going to definitely be an issue for years to come.

But the idea that only human activity causes oil slicks…or global warming…is becoming harder to defend as balanced science is reported.

It’s word association time!


What is the first thing you think of when you see the following words or phrases?

Put your answers in the comments. If you don’t know what word association is, here are some “rules”.

  1. Climate Change
  2. Eric Holder
  3. Kevin Jennings (not the “Jeopardy!” winner)
  4. Tiger Woods (keep it clean, people)
  5. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
  6. Nidal Hassan
  7. Barack Hussein Obama (mmm mmm mmm)
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

This is how the world ends…not with a warming, but by rewriting history


via Wikipedia’s climate doctor.

Medieval artistic illustration of the spherica...

Medieval artistic illustration of the spherica...


The Medieval Warm Period, which followed the meanness and cold of the Dark Ages, was a great time in human history — it allowed humans around the world to bask in a glorious warmth that vastly improved agriculture, increased life spans and otherwise bettered the human condition.

But the Medieval Warm Period was not so great for some humans in our own time — the same small band that believes the planet has now entered an unprecedented and dangerous warm period. As we now know from the Climategate Emails, this band saw the Medieval Warm Period as an enormous obstacle in their mission of spreading the word about global warming. If temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago than today, the Climategate Emails explain in detail, their message that we now live in the warmest of all possible times would be undermined. As put by one band member, a Briton named Folland at the Hadley Centre, a Medieval Warm Period “dilutes the message rather significantly.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]