ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Now let's just hope the Supreme Court doesn't come along, and, by a 5-4 vote, decide to relieve Al Gore of his Prize, and award it to George W. Bush.....

Pathetic. Condi Rice deserved it.

of course, of course!

the new stooge of the covert media,
with their fresh new minty-flavoured newspeak.

they couldn't have picked a GREATER ..

thug ...

Now he can join Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter as a recipient of this worthless award.

I think Gore needs to cut his "carbon footprint" !

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Brian-

I am under the impression you are a redneck.

Millenium-

I presume you are a freak.

I am glad Al Gore can unite the 2 of you

Millenium,

Until you get your fraudulent, huckster ass out there and start doing something substantial for peace, for the environment, for global cultural understanding, etc. might I suggest you reign in your misguided commentary for someone who can (and will) contribute to a better and cleaner planet. The rare person who is capable and willing to reach billions of people and is able to foster a global, mass shift in thinking with regard to energy use and consumption, is truly deserving of the prize and accolades awarded him. Despite what your desperate ego obviously leads you to believe, your personal “raw, vegan, organic, green, probiotic, bicyclist, immortal” lifestyle doesn’t really amount to a hill of beans in the long run - UNLESS, of course, you can influence others to follow suit. Unfortunatley, the tone of your ranting and raving rhetoric clearly doesn't inspire many, nor do your paltry “contributions to humanity” via the internet.

I for one gladly give credit where credit is due – though he's not perfect, I say "Way to go, Al Gore!"

LTOR is a quack job.

I take the redneck comment as a compliment, Thank you !
The thing I can't figure out about the global warming alarmists is what temperature would they like the earth to be anyway ? So the earth is warming, so what ! Isn't it better that the earth is warmer than colder? If it was colder we would not be able to grow any food. This whole global warming thing is just so ridiculous, a couple of volcano eruptions and we'll be in a cooling phase. But as PT Barnham so aptly put it "there's a sucker born every minute" in this case Gore riding the wave of mass hystaria, you got to hand it to him he's quite the showman. What else would he do now anyway now that he's done with politics. What does global warming have to do with peace anyway ? He's sharing this award with the UN panel ? Aren't they the one's that sat on their hands, along with Clinton / Gore, while 800 thousand Rwandains were massacured and wouldn't let the U.N. intervene ? And they get a peace prize ? What a joke !

The issues of Global Warming and Climate change are total frauds intended to dismantle Western Civilization and industry and reduce us to a third world country as part of the Globalists plan to incorporate us into their Orwellian New World Order of millions of bureaucrats trying to divide up the too little in their vast prison state (which is why, of course, Al Gore received the peace prize from the Globalist Insiders). We must not allow P.T. Barnum to be right about the American people. See: JBS.org (search: global warming).--Ed Nemechek.-760-246-8059

Say what you will about Al but Tipper rocks!

The Nobel Peace Prize was also given to Rajendra Pachauri head of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC). It was a jointly received award for Al Gore and this organization.

Here is some info. on the IPCC:
*Established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep)
*Made up of more than 2,000 leading climate experts
*Tasked with assessing scientific data on the risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation
*Does not carry out any research of its own
*First Assessment Report published in 1990; its Fourth Assessment Report called Climate Change 2007 to be published mid-November

David's comment posted at the top of the page is a cartoon in the LA Times today. The caption reads: "This morning Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize...This aternoon the Supreme Court took it away from him."

It almost hurts to imagine what a different world we might be living in had the 2000 election resulted in a different ending.

BTW Anonymous, sorry I'm not your cup of tea.

Thank you LTOR, I too weep for all the needless death and destruction.

Brian, you ask a lot of good questions and bring up a lot of good points.

The world heating up, Brian, means more water, which means less land. Ojai will become ocean front property in the future. Good for you, but not so good for all those “good republicans” in Ventura.

What does global warming have to do with peace? Right now we are waging war over oil. Tomorrow it will be over water. When people are starving or homeless, who knows what else we’ll be fighting over.

The UN panel that shared the award with Mr. Gore was an Environmental panel. They had no authority to go into Rwanda to save anyone. As for Bill Clinton, I think he was a little busy being attacked by the “right wing, sore loser, crybabies”, and being "Wagged the Dogged" to death for eight years, he barely had time to do all the amazingly great things he did do. (Like make it possible for me to buy my first home. Hmm, let's see, I think I heard YESTERDAY that there are 750,000 less homeowners today than there were when your president took office.)

I have to ask you, Brian and Ed, what is wrong with being too careful anyway. I mean, aren't you the conservatives? Doesn't that mean you like to conserve things, like oil, electricity, water and other non-renewable resources? So what if it is wrong? Isn't it better to be safe than sorry, or should we just go on our merry way, using up all the earth’s resources, so we can hurry on up to heaven?

Coleen-

I suspect you heard incorrectly or were misinformed "that there are 750,000 less homeowners today than there were when your president took office.".
I assume you are comparing now to 2001?
Is that correct?
You can look up homeownership stats all over the net:
http://www.google.com/search?q=homeownership+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The low interest period since 9-11 has made home ownership percentages quite stable/slightly up even as home prices have increased, especially, of course in California.

Now we are in a "housing recession", and the numbers may decline as foreclosures increase.

I am no fan of Dubya, actually extremely the opposite.
One of the consequences of 9-11 is that people in general have sought solace, safety and comfort in owning their own residences.
Even in New York, where real estate is once again at an all-time high

Coleen,
Well I won't go into my nuclear power rant, but sufice to say that it is the only solution to global warming. You might want to check on the sea level rise estimates, they have been revised down since Gore's propaganda movie. All you have to do is google "rwanda" to see Clinton/Gore's role in that genocide. When Clinton was in office we were in the middle of the dot com bubble, a lot of people making money in cyberspace, meanwhile real tangible things like manufacturing were leaving this country like they still are. Bush certainly has not helped that situation either. But this global warming thing is a hoax, sure the earth is warming , it has been for millions of years, since the last ice age, and there is some evidence that it has excellerated but the solutions people like Gore are proposing are an attempet to regulate and control every aspect of our lives and none of these restrictions and controls are going to do one single thing to curb global warming, in fact greenhouse gases will increase in the coming years no matter what reststrictions are placed on the working people. One single coal burning plant will cancle out everything.

Clinton has publicly addressed the guilt and regret he personally feels with regard to his administration's inaction in Rwanda (which, for a former politician, I find pretty amazing for him to admit). My personal belief is that the horrific catastrophe of Mogadishu played a big part in his unwillingness to send in troops...

Will Bush, Cheney and the rest ever admit to feelings of remorse or guilt (or even doubt) in having instigated one of the most obscene, most deadly, and most immoral tactical errors in recent history? Considering they'd have to possess a conscience to do so leaves me to assume that such soul-searching, introspection and honesty with the American people will never happen.

Brian,

Actually, the Nobel was awarded not just to Gore but simultaneously to a group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents hundreds of climate scientists from all parts of the globe. They have -- needless to say -- examined very carefully arguments such as yours that Earth is warming naturally anyway, or that the pace of change should not be considered alarming. They have collectively concluded that those arguments are completely specious. Now you may not like Gore for political reasons, but what gives you the audacity to substitute your scientific judgment for that of real scientists all over the world who have devoted their lives to this issue???

Sea level estimates and actual observation of polar ice cap melting have been revised dramatically UPWARD this year, as has the scientific community's assessment that this is anthropogenic (human-caused) in nature.

In fact, it is possible that the IPCC underestimated the rate of ice melt by as much as a century.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/11/18453403.php

You can call it a hoax, that doesn't make it so. You can say Al Gore and virtually the entire scientific community, including the IPCC, have no credibility, that doesn't make it so.

It is completely absurd to say Gore is "attempting to regulate and control every aspect of our lives." You and Ed can talk conspiracy all you want, but the fact is that accelerating climate change is real, the alternative energy movement is real, and it is supported by capitalism, investment and real dollars. Look at ANY business magazine, and chances are it has a cover page story on alternative energy.

These emerging industries will have many players, most companies will be acquired or disappear, and major new players will emerge as the titans for the new millennium. Same as the industrial revolution, the advent of the radio, telephone, railroad, television, internet, etc. I am all for a major paradigm shift that reduces the power of the oil companies towards industries that favor environmental and social responsibility.

--------------------------------------------------

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007

The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was completed in early 2007. Like previous assessment reports, it consists of four reports, three of them from its working groups.

Working Group I dealt with the "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change." The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers was published on 2 February 2007 and revised on 5 February 2007. There was also a 2 February 2007 press release. The full WGI report was published in March. The key conclusions of the SPM were that:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

* Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.

* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century and that:

o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in).

o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.

o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years

No, El Anonimo, I don't want to retract that number. I heard it twice yesterday and sorry to say I don't have a source to give you, (one place I heard it was on the Tom Hartman show on Air America Radio) but it was based on all the thousands of people who have lost their homes in just this past year on the soaring variable interest rates. (I know several of them right here in Ojai.)

Thanks to you for citing your sources and thanks to Tyler for posting the facts on Global Warming.

As for Clinton and Rwanda, I am not going to be a Clinton defender on this one. I protested loudly for our country to step in to save lives in Rwanda. I was disgusted that we didn't.

Unlike Republicans (and I don't mean ALL of them), I do not blindly stand behind my party's elected leader. I protested many, many times against Bill Clinton and his policies, the first time being his first week in office when he reneged on his "Gays in the Military" promise. That doesn't change the fact that he did a lot of good things. For the most part, we had peace and prosperity!

Why don't we ever hear about glaciers that are advancing? The U.N. panel is not the last word on climate change, I know all of the alarmist would like the debate to be closed, very convenient ! Since when in science is a debate closed? It goes against the very nature of scientific investigation !

There is so much information out there contrary to the U.N. panel I can only conclude that they have an agenda.

Here is just one:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/02/09/glacier-advance-and-retreat-another-example-of-the-compexity-of-this-climate-metric/

I can't understand why you take all this as gospel?

Still nuclear power is the obvious choice for a number of reasons, for you, global warming, also for our dependence on foreign oil, air pollution, hydrogen economy, electric cars.

Brian

It never ceases to amaze me how the people who are most hostile to real science nevertheless invoke the name of science to defend their views..... like the people who invented "Creation Science"... Brian, are you a fan of creationism too?

I'll bet the Flat Earth Society can point you to some website that says that science is on their side.....

I don't know why you call the U.N. panel "real science" ? Is some science real and other science not real? Is the science that supports your view the "real" science and everybody elses science fake ? There are glaciers that are advancing in Alaska, do you not believe that?

What about the "science" of nuclear energy ? Do you understand that current nuclear technology is a safe and economical way to make power? Do you beleive that France is 80 percent nuclear power and does not have a nuclear waste problem?
I believe in God, does that negate everything I say?

Brian

I don't know why you call the U.N. panel "real science" ? Is some science real and other science not real? Is the science that supports your view the "real" science and everybody elses science fake ? There are glaciers that are advancing in Alaska, do you not believe that?

What about the "science" of nuclear energy ? Do you understand that current nuclear technology is a safe and economical way to make power? Do you beleive that France is 80 percent nuclear power and does not have a nuclear waste problem?
I believe in God, does that negate everything I say?

Brian

Coleen: I'm with you on Clinton. I didn't always agree with what he did, but I feel history will be extremely kind to him, and deservedly so.

My comment above was not meant to be an indictment of what he did re: Rwanda (though, in hindsight I'm sure many of us would have wished he persued a different course of action) but that he had the courage and moral decency to admit that he felt he made some wrong (and fateful) choices. How often does that happen (voluntarily) in the political arena??? I believe it was Phalarope who stated he never trusted anyone who could never admit they were wrong. I couldn't agree more. I just wish those currently in office would follow suit and act HUMAN for once!! To me, it's the insufferable intractability that feels like salt constantly being poured over gaping, festering wounds.

Brian, I'm with you as far as the nuclear angle is concerned.

And I think your statement about believing in God is an indirect admission that you are indeed a bit skeptical about the theory of evolution.... so I've got to give you credit for owning up to that one.

Anyway, I'll be saying good night now.... nice chatting with you.....

By selecting Gore and the IPCC, the Nobel committe showed wisdom in connecting world peace with the consequences of our unsustainable fossil-fueled lifestyle, whether it's contributing to global warming or not. Rather than in the White House, as some are suggesting, Gore could be more effective as head of the U.N. We need a healthy U.N. to meet the global challenges we are facing. (Okay, Ed, your turn.)

I wish to comment that we have to quit making excuses for the genocidal actions of our leaders by calling them 'blunders' or 'tactical errors' or ' failures to communicate', etc., etc.. Their actions are deliberate acts of genocide on other countries or the American people in accordance with their overall plan for world population reduction and supression of freedom everywhere as part of their imposition of their world order. President Franklin Roosevelt once made a very profound observation when he said: "When anything happens in politics, you had better believe it was planned that way". He was certainly the type who would know. The decline of America is not the result of the continual 'blunders' of our leaders but instead, the deliberate treason of these leaders over decades and we must stop it through congress. See: JBS.org (click on 'Take action!')--Ed Nemechek-760-246-8059.

When the John Birch Society, liberals, lefties and moderates all agree on a policy prescription, we have to start wondering who disagrees, and why.

Not to take the topic far afield (I don't think this is off topic actually), but for those who cannot fathom the connection between global warming and peace, consider Ed's quote of Roosevelt above, and the following quote from an interesting recent interview with the last journalist known to have interviewed Osama bin Laden, Abdel Bari Atwan:

"I remember, I asked bin Laden, “What’s your strategy? You are challenging the biggest superpower on earth? Do you think you can defeat this superpower?” He said, “No, I cannot defeat it, but I can launch a war of attrition against them.” I asked, “What do you mean?” He said, “If I manage to bring them to our part of the world and fight them on our own turf, in the middle of the Arab and the Muslim world, this will be fatal for them. It will be another Vietnam.”"

Read the whole interview here:

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Oct2007/barsamian.html

I don't believe Al Gore would have delivered bin Laden all of his desired goals, as Bush has. By choosing to pursue the false and misguided fight that an isolated whacko like bin Laden wants, and refusing to rise to the fight that Gore and the rest of the enlightened world knows is upon us, Bush and Cheney have sold us all out. The only apparent reason for their choice seems to be the money they and their cronies are making from this death and destruction. But what will their money even be worth? Our dollar is already plummeting as a result of their policies.

LTOR got it right above: Just imagine what a different world we would be in today if the winner of the popular vote in the 2000 elections had actually assumed the Presidency?

No kidding, Foco, and LTOR too! I can't remember ever being in such turmoil with any president since I was born.

I agree things would have been so much different had Gore been in office. I have my doubts whether
9-11 would have even happened at all. The terrorist's targets were so clear...The Government and The Money! (Unfortunately, 3000 of us were in the way.)

This just may have been payback time for the first Gulf War which began the occupation of Saudi Arabia.

If 9-11 had happened, I doubt we would have even bombed Afghanistan. (I just love the mainstream position, "Well, ahh, I supported bombing Afghanistan, but Iraq, NO WAY!)

If only Mr. Gore had been president.

If the rightful winner in 2000 were president we'd probably still have two tall towers in New York. I didn't vote for Al then because he was being too timid, but after reading his book, Assault On Reason, I'd volunteer for his campaign now. Al needs to run. The only power sufficient to deal with the threat of global warming resides in the oval office. I disagree with Lanny in that the UN is currently powerless. The next president can restore power to the UN, which has been gelded by the BushCo criminals. He/she can then press to deal with green house emissions worldwide. Not to mention seeking war crimes trials for those responsible for the illegal war in Iraq. Al let us down badly in 2000 when he conceded and it is his duty now to set right the wrongs that have taken place as a direct result of his concession. He could jump into this race and not have to take any money from any special interest. He would win hands down just by announcing. He owes it to us. Run Al, run!

I completely agree, SPK!

I totally understand why he doesn't want to run, but the truth is he is a Great American and he loves this country and he's gonna have to bite the bullet for at least 4 years to get us out of this mess. I, too, would do what I could to help him win.

I've heard there is a web site where you can find a phone number or an e mail address to encourage him to run. I'm sure a simple google would find it quickly.

Are you kidding ? He's making too much money on his global warming scam now ! Look and the millions he's making off of his carbon offsets and trade schemes ! He would be foolish to let that go to waste to run for president ! Gore is responsible for global warming !, during his tenure we built 260 1000 mw coal burning plants which burn 4 millions tons of coal per year EACH , which in turn produce 10 million tons of co2 per plant per year

Am I on crack!?!? I thought I just read "Gore is responsible for global warming !, during his tenure..."

...uhhhhh...sorry, nevermind...must be me...

Carry on.

While I agree with spk that U.S. support is needed to empower the U.N., the world also needs someone like Gore in the Secretary-General's seat in addition to a pro-UN president. Besides, as much as you'd like to see Al in the White House, if he entered the race at this point wouldn't it be very divisive for the Democratic party at a time when they need to unify? How could he expect to receive the Clintons' endorsement if he ultimately became the candidate after surprising her like that?

Oh, and BTW, those of you who advocate nuclear power, please tell us first how the radioactive waste will be stored safely for tens of thousands of years. Although radiological engineers apparently have a professional obligation to downplay the dangers of plutonium, none of them would say it is safe. By their most conservative estimates, it has a radiological half-life of 24,000 years. Wind, sun and biodiesel are attractive alternatives but even those relatively benign sources of energy won't make the slightest difference if we don't rein in our rapacious energy appetites. In the excitement over alternatives, few people seem to be talking about cutting back much anymore. I guess there's no money in that.

Here's another denier, a rather distinguished one:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Also, lest we for get the MTBE scandle which cost everybody a total of 30 billion dollars over a ten year period and polluted ground water everywhere. Who was in charge of the EPA at that time,... Al Gore with Katie Mckinney, who assured us that this MTBE was so nessessary for our clean air; when reputable scientist were saying it was a fraud and a poison. Now we replaced it with ethanol, another fraud.

After Brian declared Al Gore responsible for global warming, it became apparent we are not dealing here with any garden-variety case of confusion, but rather irrationality on a cosmic scale. So I found it very fitting when I saw the following piece this morning entitled Gore Derangement Syndrome in the NY Times.... hope you all don't mind my copying much of it here.

Gore Derangement Syndrome

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 15, 2007

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

.......

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

To continue on with the “what if” thoughts above…

IMAGINE:

If Gore had assumed the Presidency in 2000, our deficit would be under control…our account balance in global respect and good will would be in the black… the obscene human tragedy that was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina might never have happened … everyone in Louisiana would probably now be back in their homes (EVERYONE, including those of the 9th Ward)…we’d have plenty of money to allocate to education, to fund worthy programs like SCHIP, to take care of our elderly, etc…we might have been well on our way by now in figuring out what the hell to do about the healthcare crisis...we’d have plenty of National Guards on hand to send to small towns across America when bridges collapse or when hurricanes and tornados hit…our middle class would not be in danger of shrinking to extinction…..and Osama Bin Laden would not have been given a free pass and would still be a savior in his mind only and not in the minds of the hundreds of thousands of those who we’ve either pissed off, injured, scarred for life, or dispersed (along with all of their sympathizers throughout the world)... And finally, we would be able to look into our children’s eyes and confidently fill them with hope about their future, their children’s future and all the generations to come.

The list could go on and on…

Excellent post, David. Thank you.

Gore is a loser, and a sore loser at that ! He is not scientist, hs house consumes copious amounts of energy, he flies around in private jets wasting more energy. The Nobel peace prize has nothing to do with science now it is purely a political device for the Norwiegiens favorite poster boy. In ten years we will be looking back on this golbal warming episode and laughing at how ridiculous it all is! I think the part that is so irritating is that Gore never poses any solutions to global warming. And the fact that he shut down all nuclear power development in this country and instead promoted the burning of coal, specifically 260 coal burning plants, the worst polluters of the environment.

In ten years we will be looking back on this golbal warming episode and laughing at how ridiculous it all is!

A few comments:

In ten years, if you're still alive, you'll probably still be as dense as you are right now.

The truth doesn't care whether you believe in it or not; it remains the truth.

If your house is on fire, then regardless of how that house caught fire, you don't throw oil and gasoline on it.

And....you sure sound like a lot more of a sore loser than Al Gore does.

LTOR-IMAGINE: I disagree with your projection in that for many years I've felt that it's becoming obvious that there is no difference between the major parties except retoric. No matter what the major candidates say, the agenda will be the same when they are elected. The reason for this is that they are controlled by the same unseen big money interests behind the scenes who,for decades, have controlled both major parties and who don't really care which one gets elected. The major candidates are simply two actors in the same road show working for the same producers and the goal is total world control and the reduction of us to a slave state. -Ed Nemechek

Coleen: About your comments of 10-13-07 regarding conservatisms' definition, I feel it means people who are strict Constitutionalists opposed to socialism in general, who believe in leaving people alone to pursue their own solutions through private enterprise which leads to progress instead of the dead- end street of addressing problems by creating more government programs which always lead to more government oppression and loss of freedom. Regarding 'conserving' natural resources, I'm not aware of any we are running out of regardless of the Chicken Little dooms day screamers and global warming pushers in the media continually saying the earth is dying. There is no indication of that except from the doomsdayers themselves. The bulk of scientific evidence indicates natural resources lasting for many centuries and probably forever in the pragmatic sense. There is reportedly enough oil in the continental U.S. to last for centuries with more geologists saying that oil is actually a renewable resource that comes up from deep below the earth on a continuous basis. We should develop our own oil in the U.S. for energy independence instead of depending on foreign oil from our enemies which amounts to national suicide. Bottom line is that security and progress are attained by developing and using natural resources and energy instead of 'conserving' them for future generations that may never exist if we throw away our heritage by 'conserving' our resources for the polar bears, grizzleys, rattle snakes, and louse warts as our government is now doing.-Ed Nemechek

Ok, Ed, this time you really lost me. Nothing that you posted is true and there is no evidence to back up anything you've said here. If you have any, I wish you'd post it.

P.S. Ed, please don't refer me back to the JBS website.

Coleen: Type in: Renewable oil (on internet) and click on: WorldNetDaily:Sustainable oil?. Thanks for the inquiry about evidence regarding renewable oil, among other things. Basically my posting is relating information I've heard from the media that sounds credible but is never given wide coverage due to the media bias promoting the Green line of propaganda that government uses to 'justify' their grabbing control of private property, private business and virtually every other activity. Normally I don't pursue reference sources because with some people it's an endless demand that never seems to satisfy anyone with a vested interest in error, so to speak. However I will look around as what I've said has come from the media and scientific sources and also bits and pieces I've picked up over the years from professional sources and also common sense. I've seen in years gone by at least one ephemeral oil well being drilled in the California Hi-Desert and saw traces of oil coming from it. I was told also that the Hi-Desert was being surveyed by air for oil, but never saw any further reports (cover up?). Also I remember small periodic oil company payments to residential home owners for oil rights in the past and they wouldn't do that unless they thought there was oil there. It's obviously to the governments interest to reduce domestic oil production to maintain their lethal strangle hold on the American public whom they wish to enslave. From a common sense standpoint I think there is probably oil all over the place in our country and California including probably our back yards. But try to drill in your back yard and see how far anybody gets. They'd be pounced on by every government vulture in a suit and tie in existence. Nevertheless it would help pay the bills (to say the least) to have an oil well in our back yards. Nevertheless I'll keep looking for more reference material on my last posting. Also, I was wondering why you would object to the JBS.org website for information as I've always noticed The John Birch Society has always had extremely thorough documentation (for obvious reasons). -Ed Nemechek-760-246-8059. P.S.: When you drill that oil well in your back yard, send me a bonus for the idea (lotsa luck).-Ed.

Coleen: Also type in : scientists opposed to global warming (on internet) and click on: 'list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming'- and 'apc united nations-articles- there is no global warming'- -and others.- There seems to be a lot of opposition to "Global Warming" that's not publicised by the prostitute media.--Ed.