Posts

Students Don’t Know Where Electricity Comes But Are Being Indoctrinated in Global Warming

/0 Comments/in , /by

When I went to grade school, one of the first field trips our class made, was to a hydro electric dam.

After the hour ride, the bus parked and we were taken for a guided tour through a maze of machinery, deep inside the main power generating operations of a massive hydro electric dam.

I never forgot that day, as the manager of the complex proudly explained how electricity was produced by water turning the blades of the huge generators and how it flowed through power lines to everyone in the community

This education was provided at an early impressionable age and gave me the basic knowledge of how power is produced and relayed to every home and factory in America. We went on to learn, with coal, oil, gas, or nuclear; the principle was the same…Produce energy at an affordable price to power our modern society.

We also learned that protecting the environment was important, as stringent controls were put on our power producing facilities. Soon the skies of our cities were clear as those laws took effect. We all breathed easier.

But something happened in intervening years and a new message has come out to our children. Instead of taking a field trip to a local power generating plant to see how wonderful modern power is for our country, children were treated to an Al Gore movie. His movie, “The Inconvenient Truth,” shows the earth is on the edge of an environmental disaster caused by the very fuels that power our society.

Although Al Gore has been preaching disaster for many years and claimed his version of climate science is settled “science,” thousands of scientists, physicists, phd’s, meteorologists, and others very much disagree with his facts.

So why did many of our public schools decide to force our young children to watch the Al Gore climate movie without first questioning the truth of his science? That’s a good question and needs to be answered. What is the agenda?

Since the Gore movie was released in 2006, it has been shown to millions of school age children and portrayed as scientific fact. It has scared them. It leads them to believe that fossil energy is evil and the use of it will mean the destruction of the earth.

Along with the anti fossil fuel message; a line of thought set on the destruction of many of our hydro electric dams is starting to creep in. The dam destruction is done in the name of restoring our environment to its original condition…before the presence of modern man spoiled it.

Of course nuclear power has been maligned so long it will never get over the stigma of being non earth friendly.

That leaves us with wind/solar/bio fuels and unicorn dust to power our modern society. Which if past performance and present technology demonstrate, there is a dark and bankrupt future in store for our country.

An interesting video was sent my way a few days ago. These are University of Chicago students who are speaking about having their school and other institutions divest themselves of fossil energy investments.

As you can see, they lack an understanding of what comes next. What approved method of power will take the place of our carbon based energy they are so fearful of?

These kids were freshmen in high school when they first viewed the Al Gore film and it seems they never got an alternate message to it. I’ll also suppose they never were able to take a field trip to a local power generating facility to see exactly what it takes to turn on the lights and heat their homes.

Perhaps it’s time to revise our school curriculum’s, to be more rounded and show the other side of the war on our energy sector…Just what the consequences will be if our country “divests itself” of our fossil energy.

___________________________________________

Ed Farnan is the conservative columnist at IrishCentral, where he has been writing on the need for energy independence, strong self defense, secure borders, 2nd amendment, smaller government and many other issues. His articles appear in many publications throughout the USA and world. He has been a guest on Fox News and a regular guest on radio stations in the US and Europe.

On Eve of Nov. 5 Fossil Fuels Debate, Penn State Global Warming Prof Outed for Falsely Claiming to be Nobel Recipient

/1 Comment/in /by

Just days before the McKibben vs Epstein environmental debate, November 5, at Duke University, a bombshell rocked the environmental community. Read more: “Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown.”

The Nobel Prize committee declared Penn State’s Professor, Michael Mann, has falsely claimed to be a recipient of the Nobel Prize; He never received an award from them. Both he and Penn State have been claiming for years his Nobel status to boost his scientific prestige and credibility.

To Mann, the litigious creator of the climate “Hockey Stick” graph, this is an extreme blow to any scientific credibility he may have had. The “hockey stick graph” was used by Al Gore and others to convince us we were on the verge of climate catastrophe, One critic stated: “Michael Mann is another black mark against anyone involved in “climate science.”

Penn State, still reeling from a sex scandal that threatened its accreditation, suffers another huge blow to its reputation. But the taint of Penn States scandal will now waft over the environmental movement, which has used Manns science to further its war against fossil fuels. This latest scandal throws into question the validity of the science behind the “climate change” movement.

There is a huge, well funded, well coordinated movement throughout the United States, set on the goal of completely killing our use of fossil energy. One of the main public spokesman and virulent foes of fossil energy is Bill McKibben. McKibben recently stated fossil fuel is public enemy #1 and has vowed to destroy our fossil based energy industry, source of 85% of our power.

But the fossil energy industry is not without its defenders and Alex Epstein has stepped up to the plate to defend it. He has challenged Bill McKibben to a one on one debate at Duke University November 5, where they can slug it out in the intellectual arena of ideas.

Epstein is president of the Center for Industrial Progress, a think tank that proactively champions the use of fossil energy, using real science to bolster its pro energy argument and history as a guidepost to the beneficial use of fossil fuels for mankind…Epstein is a formidable spokesman to stand toe to toe with one of the lefts most high profile foes of fossil energy.

McKibben is recognized as one of the key people influencing President Obamas decision to delay the building of the Keystone Pipeline. When he publicly states he wants to make the use of fossil fuels illegal, it is a reflection of an overall strategy to fundamentally transform our society.

In a Bill McKibben world, our energy would be supplied mainly by windmills and solar. Historically and at present technological levels, these forms of energy could not put a dent in the energy needs of our advanced society. This means civilization would have to become more primitive and a large segment of our population would revert to manual labor focused on farming.

Alex Epstein totally disagrees with this vision and had a message for McKibben and the rest of those who are out to destroy the use of fossil fuel. “The idea that fossil fuels are destroying the planet, is contrary to all evidence. All of the evidence we have is that by producing abundant affordable energy, fossil fuels have made our climate 50 times safer over the past 80 years.” ” And just on a common sense level you’d much rather be alive today, whatever happens in the climate or the weather, than you would a hundred years ago….The last time we had Bill McKibbens desired C02 emissions.”

The fossil fuel industry is highly adaptive and at the cutting edge of new technological breakthroughs that make it more efficient and cleaner. The 3 fields of energy that produce power serving billions of people; nuclear, fossil and hydro electric, are incredibly advanced, making them the progressive energy of the present and future. Windmills (technology from hundeds of years ago) and solar cannot even begin to serve the energy needs of the world and replace fossil based (carbon) energy.

The militancy of the war on fossil energy, brings a huge price tag with it. Already there are job losses in coal which is under a huge assault. Gasoline is double the price it was 4 years ago and utility rates will skyrocket as rate payers are forced to pay the subsidies given to “green energy,” which McKibben and his allies want to force on society.

Epstein says: “The last thing true scientifically is, we need to destroy our energy supply. That is the least scientific statement a human could make and is the most suicidal statement a human could make.” “Bill McKibben and his movement are free to make us an offer in the free market of ideas…. let them convince us. But they don’t have the right to force us, or give us an order.”

I asked Epstein what he hopes to accomplish in this debate: “I want people to have an appreciation and gratitude for the fact that everything they love in their lives depends on abundant, affordable energy. Their ability to get that in the future and the ability of billions of others to get it in the future, depends on the freedom to use fossil fuels, as well as other practical sources of energy. But this ability is really under attack by Bill McKibben and others who think going forward we should not use fossil fuels.”

This debate is a rare opportunity for the public to witness the clash of powerful ideas that are being used to re-shape our civilization. With professor Manns loss of stature in the scientific community, the climate change movement has a lot to answer for and we will expect answers November 5.

___________________________________________________________

Ed Farnan’s articles are also carried in:

Irish Central
Energy independence-Politics & More
Carrollstandard.com
Tea Party Cheer
Tea Party Patriots
AMAC

Gore on Obama’s Terrible Debate Performance: “An Inconvenient Altitude”

/1 Comment/in , /by

Former Vice President Al Gore, no stranger to disappointing debate performances, took to the airwaves to offer his own inconvenient excuse for President Obama’s shaky effort Wednesday night in Denver: Gore blamed it on the altitude.

“I’m going to say something controversial here,” Gore said on his Current TV network’s post-debate analysis. “Obama arrived in Denver at 2:00 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started.
“Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet and you only have a few hours to adjust — I don’t know, maybe ….”

Gore’s rationale for Obama’s inexplicable muff elevated the alibis from the left – which already include complaints about left-leaning PBS moderator Jim Lehrer, as well as the format of the debate – to dizzying new heights.

Read more from this story HERE.

Even Al Gore Now Abandoning Loser Green Energy Investments

/1 Comment/in , /by

If you are thinking about green energy for your portfolio, Al Gore has a few words of advice: “Don’t do it.”

“Of course he does not say that in public,” says Bill Gunderson, president of Gunderson Capital Management. “Gore’s company still talks about how alternative energy is a good investment. How companies are adopting it, governments are subsidizing it and people are using it.”

But SEC filings from Gore’s company, Generation Investment, tell a different story, says Gunderson, who hosts a nationally syndicated financial talk radio program and writes for MarketWatch and TheStreet.com.

“Generation Investment says it is all about climate change, but it is just a typical investment fund with typical stocks,” Gunderson said.

“It has Amazon, Colgate Palmolive, eBay, Nielsen, Qualcomm, Strayer University and a smattering of stocks from biotech and health care. Not one company that makes solar panels, or windmills or biogas or electric cars. Catheters and commercial real estate, yes. Solar panels, no.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Host of Young Turks and Al Gore’s Cable Network is a Holocaust Denier

/4 Comments/in , /by

Photo credit: z@doune

Apparently, the Young Turk’s Cenk Uygur’s “Turkish pride” has short-circuited his own brain cells to the point that he actually denies the Armenian holocaust – that other great, ethnically driven genocidal catastrophe of the 20th century.

Though Uygur has not made much of his unusual (and, shall we say, historically indefensible) convictions during his time at MSNBC or Current, he’s held them for a very long time, the record shows.

Back in 1999, Uygur wrote a letter to the editor of Salon disputing the Armenian genocide as a fabrication of self-deluded Armenian historians.

“I am a Turkish-American, and I am sure my views will also be looked upon with a certain wariness, but I do not subscribe to the idea that I am disqualified from objectivity by my ethnicity,” Uygur wrote about an earlier article in the online magazine. “First, at the very beginning of the article, you seem to reach a conclusion – ‘The central Armenian experience of the 20th century, after all, was the death of as many as 1.5 million Armenians …’ and ‘Every neutral scholar agrees that the Turkish position is propaganda.’”

Like other holocaust-deniers – including those of the anti-Semitic variety – Uygur explains that the Christian Armenian deaths at the hands of the Muslim Turks was all just a matter of war propaganda – in this case World War I that brought an end to the Ottoman Empire. The U.S. was behind it all, Uyger wrote, just “as it [was] with Germany.” The other problem, he said, was that there weren’t enough “Turkish-Americans to combat the insinuations of savagery.”

Read more from his story HERE.

US: On the Verge of Earth-Shattering Change

/4 Comments/in , /by

Horizontal drilling and fracking have made oil shale and tar sands rich sources of oil and natural gas, so much so that the United States may prove to possess the largest store of fossil-fuel reserves in the world — in theory, with enough gas, oil and coal never to need any imported Middle Eastern energy again. “Peak oil” suddenly is an anachronism. Widespread American use of cheap natural gas will do more to clean the planet than thousands of Solyndras.

If the United States uses its resources, its present pathologies — massive budget and trade deficits, mounting debt, strategic vulnerability — will start to subside. These new breakthroughs in petroleum engineering are largely American phenomena, reminding us that there still is something exceptional in the American experience that periodically offers the world cutting-edge technologies and protocols — such as those pioneered by Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks and Wal-Mart.

In comparison, China is not only resource-poor but politically impoverished. For decades, we were told that Chinese totalitarianism, when mixed with laissez-faire capitalism, led to sparkling airports and bullet trains, while a litigious and indulgent America settled for a run-down Los Angeles airport and creaking Amtrak relics. But the truth is that LAX probably will look modern sooner than the Chinese will hold open elections amid a transparent society — given that free markets did not make China democratic, only more contradictory.

Even more surreal, tiny, oil-poor Israel, thanks to vast new offshore finds, has been reinvented as a potential energy giant in the Middle East. Petrodollars will change Israel as they did the Persian Gulf countries, but with one major difference. Unlike Dubai or Kuwait, Israel is democratic, economically diverse, socially stable and technologically sophisticated, suggesting that the sudden windfall will not warp Israel as it did traditional Arab autocracies, but will instead become a force multiplier of an already dynamic society. Will Europe still snub Israel when it has as much oil, gas and money as a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in the Persian Gulf?

Who would have thought that a few fracking innovators in Texas would change the world’s carbon footprint far more than did Nobel laureate Al Gore — while offering a way for the U.S. to be energy-independent? Or that Angela Merkel, not the European Union, would run Europe? Or that Arabs would be overthrowing Arabs as oil-rich Israel watched idly?

Read more from this story HERE.

Photo credit: Ecopolitologist