Mad About High Gas Prices? A Simple Solution

By Ron Ewart

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

There are only 545 people who essentially run the entire country. Americans are 300,000,000 strong.

It only takes a small percentage of that 300,000,000 to change policy.
Why is it we Americans are so weak that we stand around and do nothing when a major problem is staring us in the face? That’s not the American can-do spirit for which we are known.

All it takes is an idea that will sweep the country like a fast-moving infectious virus and gas prices will come down almost instantly.

Why are those 545 people purposely doing everything in their power to cut America off at her knees, while no such restrictions are being observed by any other country? The U. S. Congress has made almost all areas for drilling for oil, natural gas and mining coal on our sovereign lands, off limits. We cannot convert coal to oil. We cannot build any new hydro-electric, gas, coal or nuclear fired power plants and we can’t build any new refineries. What possible reasons could justify such derelict actions by our elected officials? The reason is they are pandering to the national and international radical environmentalists and socialists who have conquered America and taken her over without a shot being fired, for what has become a religious cult, coupled with mass hysteria over the environment!

Oil is literally the life blood of our economy. Cut it off or restrict it and our economy dies, or erupts into an upward inflation spiral as it is doing now. The question is, are we Americans going to force this congress to reverse course on crude oil extraction, in the interest of the American people and America’s economy? Or are we just going to complain and do nothing? And why on earth would we consciously make oil sheiks and dictators rich beyond their wildest dreams with our money, when we can do something about it? Why indeed!

Do you want to see gas prices come down? All it takes is a significant percentage of the American people to demand that those 545 people who control America, instantly open up areas of all known oil reserves in the United States to oil exploration by the oil companies. That’s it! The U. S. Congress could make it happen in a week, if they had the will and the anger of the American people urging them. The American people’s anger is there in spades, but the will of the U. S. Congress has to be forced upon them by those angry Americans. And don’t buy into this garbage about man-caused global warming (MCGW), CO2 emission limits and the cap and trade fraud. MCGW was invented by government and radical environmentalists to control and tax you. Its authors are international, one-world-order elitists and they will have their way if we don’t stop them. And don’t buy into the greed of the oil companies. That’s the pure propaganda of government to direct you away from who really is responsible; them. In fact, most of the oil profits are going to the dictators of government-run oil producing nations, like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

So how do we convince the U. S. Congress to act? Let the American people know who is causing the high gas prices and get the American people to "esplain" it to the perpetrators, in no uncertain terms.

Here is a one solution, if done on a large enough scale, has an absolute guarantee of success. We propose a simple little image that can be printed up on sheets of 10-up, 2” x 4” mailing labels that are manufactured by Avery. The blank labels can be purchased at any office supply store for pennies. This simple image would be posted on gas station pumps every time an angry American fills up his or her gas tank. It could sweep the country in a matter of 30 to 60 days and we could see relief at the pumps shortly thereafter, if the Congress acts appropriately under the political pressure. If Congress doesn’t act, we can get even angrier and Hell hath no fury than a whole bunch of angry Americans. Above is the image we propose. We call it the “High Gas Price Gas Pump Sticker”.

This High Gas Price Gas Pump Sticker, with instructions, is also available on the NARLO website at www.narlo.org/hgp.html.

To insure maximum distribution of this image and the WORD document, send it on to your e-mail list, encouraging the recipients to do the same. Also, print up these Avery sheets, cut them up in individual images and pass them out to others you know.

WE THE PEOPLE have more power than those 545 disconnected people in Washington DC. All we need do is exercise that power for what we know is right. Don’t let the 545 people in Washington DC, reduce America to the level of a third-world country. In the honor of those brave souls that came before you that defended our freedom, let’s show the rest of the world that we still have some American “hot” red blood running through our veins. When we pull this off, you can watch the speculators of oil run for cover. Just think. Some of those speculators, that have been bringing you pain at the pumps, could go broke, the dictators will lose some of their power and our money could stay in the U. S. where it belongs.

And you Canadians, you can apply the same pressure on your government by coming up with your own “High Gas Price Sticker”. But for God’s sake, do something to save yourself from the tyranny of an out-of-control government, before it is too late! We are Americans. We can do anything when we put our minds and our backs to it.

This High Gas Price Gas Pump Sticker, with instructions, is also available on the NARLO website at http://www.narlo.org/hgp.html.

One final note. We wish to acknowledge and to thank Mr. Frank Flettre of Duval, WA,, a consistent NARLO supporter, for giving us this idea.

Ron Ewart, President, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS. An organization dedicated to re-establish, preserve, protect and defend property rights
Ron can be reached at:

r.ewart@comcast.net

James Madison on Enemies of Public Liberty

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
-James Madison

Why You Need To Meet The Real John McCain

A message from
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt,
Sr. Policy Advisor,
U.S. Dept. of Education
during the Reagan Administration


As a delegate to our state convention this coming weekend we have a solemn obligation to know the truth about the man who has been anointed the “presumptive nominee” of our party. Our job is not to be a rubber stamp for anyone else’s agenda, no matter how “nobly” the cause is presented. The Republican establishment in Maine is counting on us not having the documented information on this sheet. It is counting on our willingness to be told what to think in the same way that the mainstream media has been telling us what to think throughout this entire election cycle. We are expected to suspend any other concerns we may have in the name of “party unity.”



The truth is that a patriot who loves his country makes it an ultimate priority to be well-educated about the decisions he or she must make. Unless we have come to understand how dominated by the leftist military-industrial complex America’s major media has become, and done some research, we are not prepared to do our duty at the convention.



This letter, supported by many delegates to the Republican Convention, is literally about saving the party and the nation from a maniacal neoconservative war monger, who supports a United States presence in Iraq for 100 years, and who is not really even a Republican!



“War hero” image is a media creation not supported by the facts



McCain graduated 894th of the 899 cadets in his class at the Naval Academy. Google it. Why would we want someone who was a failure and took his responsibilities so flippantly as our commander-in-chief?



McCain was an irresponsible pilot who crashed 6 planes, and started a major fire on an aircraft carrier through negligent action. Why would we want someone this reckless in the most-important office on the planet?



McCain collaborated with the enemy, was given “soft” treatment because his father was an admiral, and is known as “Songbird McCain” by those who were imprisoned with him. (http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com) He is the MIA/POW family’s worst enemy for his constant attempts to belittle their concerns and stifle their inquiries while serving in the Senate.



McCain ditched his ill wife to marry an heiress when he returned from Vietnam



Is this the type of morality we Republicans condone? Is this type of heinous lack of loyalty we want in a President? He also has a track record of shocking verbal abuse, including screaming profanities against his Senate Republican colleagues. Senator Thad Cochran, MS, says “The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine.” Other Senators relate times when McCain screamed four-letter obscenities right in their faces in the Senate cloak room, like Dick Shelby, Rick Santorum or Jim Imhofe. “The man is unhinged,” one senator said. “He is frighteningly unfit to be commander-in-chief.”



The truth is, John McCain is not even a Republican. He is a phony stalking horse who is a liberal in disguise. He not only can’t win this fall because he is so out of step with the majority of Americans and with the principled stands of Republicanism, but if we support this person for our nominee, he will likely destroy our party. Consider:



He was intimately involved in the “Keating 5” Savings & Loan scandal.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating ]

He has been endorsed by the liberal/leftist New York Times.

He is a big advocate of the extreme “green” global warming scare, and the economically horrific “solutions” being proposed by people like Al Gore.



He has promoted illegal amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.



His McCain-Feingold Bill has destroyed much of the rights of people to take part in the political process the way they see fit. This bill remains un-Constitutional and a major affront to the First Amendment protections on the right of free speech.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act ]


He is a big-time gun grabber who is an extreme advocate of restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights.



He opposes repeal of Roe v. Wade, and opposes a Constitutional amendment to protect all life.



He is no fiscal conservative, and he supports raising taxes on Social Security benefits.



He continues his aggressive support for the Iraq War, which costs the U.S. taxpayer $12 billion a month, even though only 34% of Americans support the war. (According to Paul Craig Roberts, Asst. Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, and vocal opponent of the Iraq War: 4,538 Americans have died in the war, 29,780 have been wounded, 300,000 soldiers are suffering from major depression, and 320,000 received brain injuries, all as a result of this unconstitutional and immoral war.)



We will hear much about “unity” at the Maine State Convention. However, it is very important that we understand that to unify behind this man is tantamount to nominating a Democrat. We can vote our consciences or abstain from voting.



John McCain did poorly in our Maine caucuses. By most estimates he got fewer than 20% of the delegates to the State Convention coming out of our caucuses and was soundly trounced by both Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul. McCain did not win a single county in the straw poll, with 15 counties going to Romney and one (Aroostook) going to Dr. Paul. McCain has little support nationally…there are never huge rallies for McCain, unless people are paid to show up. In short, he is a media creation and the darling of the Trotskyite neoconservative warmongers who have hijacked our party. He does not support our own platform!



Former Romney supporters who receive this info sheet DO NOT have to follow the “uncalled for” advice of the Massachusetts governor that you go over the cliff with support for this unstable man.



DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF OR YOUR VOTE TO BE PROSTITUTED IN THE NAME OF PARTY UNITY. PUT YOUR COUNTRY FIRST!



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and for being such an important part of our representative form of government -- the envy of the world!

Global WARMING?????

Global temperatures 'to decrease'

By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.

Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.
Rises 'stalled'

LA NINA KEY FACTS

La Nina translates from the Spanish as "The Child Girl"

Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific

Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific mean the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased

Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally less damaging event than the stronger El Nino
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Watching trends

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."

China suffered from heavy snow in January

Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
]Published: 2008/04/04 00:42:26 GMT
© BBC MMVIII

Global Warming anyone?

March 13, 2008

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

A complete analysis is available online.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html


Climate panel on the hot seat

By H. Sterling Burnett -

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed. In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming. However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted. Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick. These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported." The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect. Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics. In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions. A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval. Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles. The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines. The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

Its About Freedom Not Climatology

by Floy Lilley

When Vaclav Klaus, who has just won reelection as President of the Czech Republic, states that he has comparative advantage over other speakers on the issue of Climate Change, he is trenchantly correct. Klaus lived under the last large central planning scheme – communism. He rejects the offer to live under the even more draconian central plan of our time – climate alarmism and environmentalism.

Klaus explained his déjà vu vantage point to over five hundred participants at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change assembled at Times Square New York City on March 2–4. Stressing his personally acquired wisdom, Klaus said, "Future dangers will not come from the same source [communism]. The ideology will be different. Its essence [environmentalism and climate alarmism] will, nevertheless, be identical – the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea a reality."

"What I see in Europe and the U.S.," Klaus cautioned, "is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of a cynical approach of those who are themselves sufficiently well-off, together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project."
Klaus focused on facts that showed that decreases in CO2 emissions in the EU have come about because manufacturing radically disappeared when the communist economy collapsed. Future decreases appear to rely on miracles or the deliberate pushing of the EU countries back into the Dark Ages. Carbon dioxide decreases are not normal for growing and prospering civilizations, given current technology. Most of those assembled would not consider such decreases to be either needed or desirable.

Klaus brought to our attention that the thinking of the climate alarmist is the same as Hayek’s portrayal of central planners in The Fatal Conceit. He boldly challenged the large assembly, "We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. [Freedom] should be the main message of our conference."
The aim and objective of this stimulating gathering was to collapse the fake "consensus" on human-induced catastrophic global warming. Achieving this is a necessary step toward turning climate alarmism into climate realism. The step was taken. "Consensus" collapsed. Over one hundred scientists were provided proof of the absence of "consensus" that has been touted by alarmists.

These scientists presented, exchanged and debated research showing global warming to be mostly natural, definitely moderate and realistically unstoppable. They held no consensus in their approaches or their results. Enter the dawn of climate realism.

The New York Times on Tuesday, March 4, ran an article by Andrew C. Revkin titled "Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming." Written as a criticism, Revkin wrote that "the group…displayed a dizzying range of ideas on what was, or was not, influencing climate." That was the very point of the conference.

No "consensus" can be touted when, in fact, so many scientists do indeed dispute what data are meaningful and causative of the highly complex dynamics of climate change. Several, like Dr. Willie Soon, astrophysicist and geoscientist, displayed data showing the sun to be the more likely driver of temperature variations, as compared to carbon dioxide radiative forcings.

Howard Hayden, physics professor, concluded that astronomical phenomena cause about seventy-five percent of the fluctuations in Earth’s temperature. The combined effects of all greenhouse gases, changes in surface reflectivity of the sun’s radiation, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about three degrees Celsius of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials. Hayden provided a repeatable sound bite when asked about computer models that are the basis for alarmist views. He simply said, "Garbage in; gospel out."

Dr. William M. Gray, meteorological researcher for more than forty years, contributed that the deep oceans, not carbon dioxide, are driving climate. Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent up-tick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Dr. Vincent Gray, knows water vapor to be the principal greenhouse gas as others do. However, Gray emphasizes that climate models fail to reflect the fact that water vapor is extremely variable. Gray’s work finds that the global warming claim fails on two fundamental facts: 1.) No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made. 2.) The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected." Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. Gray’s call for such a review ends with these harsh words, "The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is that the world will slowly realize that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this organization and the thinking behind it is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens."

Dr Roy Spencer, NASA senior scientist, produced recent evidence for reduced climate sensitivity. Background "noise" in climate systems creates temperature variations that are not random. This "noise" exceeds all of the warming that has been thought to have been made by humans. Climate models don’t handle clouds and convection in the tropics well. Precipitation systems interactively regulate the climate system. Computer models predicting climate change are necessarily flawed. Spencer releases his new book March 27, 2008: Climate Confusion – How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.

Dr. Robert Balling, professor of climatology, questioned what the increase in global temperature does and does not tell us. Water vapor and non-solar control seem dominant. The theory, measurements, and understanding of the greenhouse effect are advancing rapidly, and drastically changing the original predictions from only a few decades ago. Measured warming has been nowhere near the earlier predictions, and the mathematical models are being constantly revised. Both Balling and Dr. Ross McKitrick highlighted failings in data collection. Many temperature stations have been discontinued. Technology for recording temperatures has changed. Urban heat-island effects continue. Data adjustments made by alarmists appear biased.

Dennis T. Avery, and co-author S. Fred Singer, wrote Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years They presented their findings and stressed, "Most of our modern warming occurred before 1940, before much human-emitted CO2. The net warming since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degree C – with no warming at all in the last nine years. The Greenhouse Theory can’t explain these realities, but the 1,500-year cycle does." The cycle is solar induced. Ice cores show sun, not humans, controlling Earth’s climate.

So, no consensuses surfaced. None need exist when the subjects are scientific. Hypotheses and theories should continue to be tested. By different skeptical approaches each scientist at this gathering proved he was courageous. Why courageous? Because, to be a climate change skeptic is political-funding suicide. Few feel they can step forward before they retire. Many, even when gathered together and taking courage from the presence of so many others, felt they had to step away from being in group pictures. Those are choices. They are respected.

Debunking the false "consensus" position of climate alarmists didn’t end with the mere conclusion of the conference. Several synchronous efforts include: A Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. It was endorsed by scientists and researchers. The document stated clearly that "Global warming" is not a global crisis. This tangible product with many signatories declared among other points: That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate; the furtherance of the nascent International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) publication of a current and future Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report (NIPCC) a new journal on climate science; making video presentations from the conference online; making audio CDs of either a session or the complete conference available; enlistment of interested parties into a speakers bureau; and a 2009 London conference being planned.

This agenda is aggressive, necessary, and appreciated. Hopefully there will be many others who step up, especially in response to Vaclav Klaus’ plea that we recognize that the issue has never been global climate cooling or global climate warming. It has always and ever been about political power and control of earth’s population.

For over seventeen years I have witnessed at United Nations international gatherings so much ego, money and meeting time being poured into this global central plan to ration energy – to control carbon dioxide by controlling people. To control people by controlling carbon dioxide. To brand the stuff of life – carbon – a deadly pollutant. Political, activist and business careers, especially legal careers, now depend upon creating this new bureaucratic global layer of rules and regulations. The new-age rulers want the wealth and power that will accrue to them as they impose their centralized, consummate plans upon us.

The Czech Republic’s President stands firm, honoring the lives and liberties of his citizenry against this particular brand of fresh oppression. Would that these United States had such a courageous leader.

March 11, 2008

Floy Lilley [send her mail] is an adjunct faculty member at the Mises Institute. She was formerly with the University of Texas at Austin's Chair of Free Enterprise, and an attorney-at-law in Texas and Florida.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com