It’s Not Environmentalism, It’s Communism

Over the last 18 months I’ve made a few posts about the “Global Warming” Hoax.

But today, Ed Morrissey expresses my thoughts exactly, along with video evidence of political (not scientific) agenda:

The global-warming movement isn’t really about climate. It’s about stunting the economic growth of the West. That’s why groups like Greenpeace like to “emotionalize” rather than conduct and promote actual science. They’re interested in specific outcomes, not scientific truth, and that specific outcome is statist control over energy production and economic activity to redistribute wealth.

It’s not about environmentalism.

It’s about communism.

The Global Warming Hoax is a tool that the Democratic Socialists use as an excuse to block U.S. access to U.S. oil reserves (which are over three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia!). There is no reason for the U.S.A. to import even a single drop of oil. We could be an oil exporter. We could even be the world’s #1 oil exporter if we chose to be.

The world’s current #1 oil exporter is Saudi Arabia.

The world’s current #2 oil exporter is Russia.

Russia has been rebuilding using revenues from oil exports.

The communists have a vested interest in preventing U.S. access to U.S. oil.

The communists have a vested interest in keeping the U.S.A. dependent on foreign oil. A significant portion of our oil imports come from Venezuela. Our purchase of Venezuelan oil helps support Chavez.

Why is it that we are not allowed to drill for oil of of our coasts, but the Russians are?

Again, it’s not about environmentalism – it’s about communism.

UPDATE:
Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to It’s Not Environmentalism, It’s Communism

  1. Aaron says:

    Part of the oil debate that goes unmentioned is the “Last Man Standing” factor. As more oil reserves are discovered, we’re basically learning that EVERYONE has fossil fuels under them. One of the benefits we get out of buying other peoples’ fuel is that we don’t use our own. Why burn our own reserves when others are perfectly willing to give us theirs to burn instead? So far, we have gotten away with burning other countries’ reserves for 40 years, and that’s 40 years less they have now.

    Personally, I would like to see investment in our reserves now, but ONLY for capacity to spin up production . I know that we’re enduring hardship from time to time due to OPEC, but it may (not necessarily will) be worth it when they run out and we start using our own.

    I don’t give a rat’s riff about environmentalism nonsense, nature has this funny way of adapting rather quickly to changes in its environment and repairing. Just look at how often the same areas of California burn up from wild fires. However, I do like the idea of depleting the natural resources of countries that don’t like us.

  2. Is oil a finite resource? Or, a renewable resource?

    In Black Gold Stranglehold, Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science that has made America so vulnerable: the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that it is a finite resource. This book reveals the conclusions reached by Dr. Thomas Gold, a professor at Cornell University, in his seminal book The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels (Copernicus Books, 1998) and accepted by many in the scientific community that oil is not a product of fossils and prehistoric forests but rather the bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth’s surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth’s rotation.

  3. Aaron says:

    I looked up your link on Amazon, and found a partner book to go with it. I’ll be placing my order for them later tonight.

    I had never heard any alternate theories on oil before and it intrigues me greatly. I hope the book will cover the issues that run contrary to the initial theory. Mainly, the cause of reduced oil field output over time. (Many oil fields in Texas were once so full that gushers were unstoppable and thousands of barrels were spilled per day. Those same fields can now produce only a handful of barrels per day.) Aside from that, it may be an eye-opener. In light of even the presence of alternate theories, the standing theory seems ridiculous as it flies in the face of natural plant and animal life cycles. After all, decaying bio-mass is well-known as a great natural fertilizer. If the plants are absorbing nutrients/bio-mass through their roots, where does the decayed bio-mass to eventually turn into oil come from?

  4. Ryan says:

    Oil is renewable now? Sure, if you wait 300 million years. We are using oil a little faster than the Earth produces it. About a million times faster.

    Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith are total hacks. Corgi also wrote on how Obama is unfit to be president, and how 911 was a conspiracy. Big surprise there. Seems to have a big range of expertise.

  5. Aaron says:

    So Ryan, using current accepted theory on natural oil production, tell me how the jungles from millions of years ago somehow put so most of the world’s oil under the oceans? Under the polar regions where no substantial bio activity occurred, even 300 million years ago?

  6. Ryan says:

    Aaron, there is a bit of biomass in the oceans too, and those organisms decompose as well.

    As for polar regions, there are massive amounts of biological activity, but not as much as warmer regions. The difference is that the temperatures slow the decomposition process, and when the remains of organisms get buried, there is a lot more left of them to be turned into oil. The same thing happens in desert regions, where the air is dry, and decomposition is slow.

    Geologists have thought of these things you know.

  7. Aaron says:

    To make any significant amount of oil, there has to be a significant amount of bio activity, a small amount of bio activity leads to a small amount of oil. So that doesn’t explain the high volume of oil under the oceans, as by your own statement there is only small amount of bioactivity there.

    Decomposition is the necessary part of the process to make oil under current accepted theories, if you slow it down significantly, you delay the process. If you introduce natural forces such as dry climate and wind, (both necessary to make deserts) you erode out the potential for bio activity and remove decomposing matter carried off and deposited elsewhere by the wind.

    Face it, current theory natural oil production has numerous holes, many of which one could drive a truck through. You can close your mind off to alternate theories on oil, but I am not so quick to accept what was taught to me at public school. And just to burst one of the bits of “knowledge” you got from your obviously public education, Washington never chopped down a cherry tree.

  8. Ryan says:

    I said “there are massive amounts of biological activity”, and you said “by your own statement there is only small amount of bioactivity there”. Only 2% of organisms eventually turn into oil, and almost all of those are in the ocean.

    Decomposition is the necessary part of the process to make oil under current accepted theories

    That is completely false. Decomposition due to exposure to air prevents the organism from being turned into oil. Nearly all oil is created by organisms that are buried UNDER THE SEA, where the salt layer in the soil prevents the oil from seeping through to the surface.

    I am not so quick to accept what was taught to me at public school

    Obviously. I guess evolution and astronomy are all wrong too I guess. Those evil scientists, and their nasty evidence!!!

  9. Aaron says:

    Ryan, you stated there are massive amounts of bio activity in the polar regions. You never claimed that for the ocean. In fact, you claimed the opposite by stating, “there is a bit of bio-mass in the oceans.” A bit does not constitute massive amounts, except in your eyes and only when you need it to in order to salvage a point, obviously.

    Yeah, you would have to guess twice, it takes such effort to make a straw-man so you can attack it. Haven’t you realized yet that I’m going to expose that tired, cheap tactic when you use it. What’s next? Are you going to claim that I also rejected all the algebra, physics, and English from school as well? Why stop there? You have a straw-man to stuff! Go ahead, throw in the chemistry and geometry as part of your claim as well.

    As for your evolution point and all the evidence that you cite, you conveniently ignore all the large holes in that theory as well, along with the evidence supporting those holes. I guess when evidence doesn’t support your beliefs, it’s just concocted by “fundamentalist Christians” (the left’s boogeyman).

  10. Ryan says:

    When I said “a bit”, I was being sarcastic. The amount of biomass in our oceans is massive as well. The biomass of krill alone is five times that of humans. The biomass of algae is so huge it’s difficult to calculate. These fact are available if you chose to look for them.

    And how easy was it for me to predict your rejection of evolution?! Sometimes ignorance has no bounds.

    I’m sure your wisdom is far greater than all the world’s scientists put together, but you could at least know basic details of the theories you reject.

  11. Aaron says:

    Sigh…yet again with the straw-manning. Didn’t the Huff Post or Media Matters teach you any other cheap cards to play when typing out posts? Try playing the race card next, maybe it’ll work better for you.

    Where did I explicitly state that I rejected evolution? Please, tell me where that quote is, since you obviously know. Fact is that I brought up the unexplained holes in the theory and evidence supporting those, just like I mentioned holes in the accepted theory of oil. Pointing out holes is not flatly rejecting, except where YOU need it to be.

    You and the collective socialist commune flatly reject ANY alternate theories about ANYTHING that doesn’t support YOUR collective political idiology (misspelling intentional). All thought that goes against your idiology is backwoods, redneck, Christians trying to press some agenda. (which, by the way, is blatant projection on your part)

    Finally, unless made blatantly obvious, sarcasm fails when it is in text form. There is no audible or visual cues for the audience to pick up, indicating what is and isn’t sarcasm.

  12. Ryan says:

    You and the collective socialist commune

    Speaking of straw men… I’m quite capitalist thank you very much.

    I’m glad you do not reject evolution. If that is the case, I apologize. The holes you speak of do not really exist though. And your arguments about where and how oil forms are dead wrong.

  13. Aaron says:

    A more indepth analysis of the statistics you offered up previously tells a different story.

    I thought I could leave out certain parts of my oil argument and they would be understood, as that is not the case I’ll fill them in. I never stated anything about air exposed decomposotion being a source of oil. You added the exposure to air part and then called it false. I pointed out that the desert environment cannot amass enough bio-mass to support the volume of oil that has been pumped out of desert regions, even over 300 million years.

    You cited that the biomass of krill is 5x that of humans, however, the density of humanity mass is ~3200.25kg/cu.km of land and air volume. (total world pop. (P) x global avg human mass (M) / total surface area in km (K)) almost twice that of krill, which is~1761.7kg/cu.km of ocean volume. Shown as total mass of krill (C) / ocean total volume (V) where C=PxMx5. Can one calculate human density in cubic km? Yes, by getting the total surface area of land and measuring up one km to include the air directly above the land.

    Where you cite the incalculable mass of algae, I’ll cite the equally incalculable mass of grass. Further, while there is significant amounts of bio-mass in the polar regions, it falls far short of mass of the forested areas of temperate and tropical zones, which have bio-densities in excess of any other geographical regions. Even great underwater regions such as the barrier reef (it’s actually coastal, not off-shore) cannot compare in total bio-density.

    As for the “no holes in evolution” see (E) and (F). Evolution is a theory and has not been proven or disproven, it is still a theory. I have no interest in anyone who would vehemently seek to silence those who question it, OR support it

    And for the straw-manning, consider it a taste of your own medicine.

    *P http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.php
    *M http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/AlexSchlessingerman.shtml
    *K http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml
    *C Ryan’s post dated 26 Aug 2009 @12:41 PM
    *V http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml
    *E http://www.theind.com/content/view/2753/69/
    *F http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htm

  14. Aaron says:

    I thought I could drop certain parts of my oil point to save space, as that’s not the case I’ll fill them in. I never said anything about air exposed decomposotion being a source of oil. You added the air exposure part so you could brand it false. Desert environments can’t support enough bio-mass to explain the volume of oil that has been pumped out of desert regions, even with 300 million years.

    You said the mass of krill is 5x that of humans, but the density of human mass, ~3200.25kg/cu.km land and air volume, (world pop. (P) x avg human mass (M) / total surface area in sq.km (K)) is near twice that of krill, ~1761.7kg/cu.km of ocean volume. Total mass of krill (C) / ocean volume (V) where C=PxMx5.

    Where you cite the incalculable mass of algae, I’ll cite the incalculable mass of grass. Further, while significant bio-activity exists at the poles, it’s far less than in forested areas of temperate and tropical zones, which have bio-densities exceeding any other region. Even underwater areas such as the barrier reef (actually coastal, not off-shore) cannot compare.

    About “no holes in evolution” see (F). It’s a theory and has not been proven or disproven. I’ve no interest in those who seek to silence others who question it, OR support it. And for straw-manning, consider it a taste of your own medicine.

    *P http://www.census.gov
    *M, K, V hypertextbook.com
    *C Ryan’s post dated 26 Aug 2009, 12:41 PM
    *F emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htm

  15. Ryan says:

    Antarctic Krill account for 500 million tons of biomass. Humans are at about 100 million tons. Your numbers are divided by land area, giving the biomass density, which is irrelevant. The numbers for Plankton are about the same, and much of that is at the poles.

    Grass is a good point, as are all land crops, but if you’ve ever done any diving, you know that there is just as much vegetation under water as there is above water. Kelp can grow much longer than the tallest trees.

    I also gave you very good reasons why there is oil under desserts. You must also remember that they were not always deserts. The oil found in wester Canada and the US are in regions that were completely submerged not long ago. Many deserts were once lush forests.

    As for your evolution page, they show their misunderstanding of human evlution by including Neanderthals in their list. Neanderthals branched off our evolutionary tree and can be considered “cousins” of humans, but we did not evolve from them. Human evolution is the most studied area of evolution by far, and is extremely well understood, and transition fossils exist for every major step in the process. There will always be questions about how this happened, and some questions remain unanswered, but no scientist disputes that we evolved from lower organisms. The evidence is as strong as practically any theory out there. The DNA proof that came along with genome sequencing has absolutely solidified the theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

  16. Aaron,
    For reasons I don’t know, WordPress treated the comment you submitted on 2009/08/27 at 3:31pm as spam, as well as three other variations on it that you…
    Submitted on 2009/08/27 at 3:34pm,
    Submitted on 2009/08/27 at 4:02pm, and
    Submitted on 2009/08/27 at 4:35pm
    For now, I’ll leave those three comments in the spam folder, but let me know if you want me to release them.

    It looks like you submitted another variation at 4:48pm that was not treated as spam and made it through. My guess is that one or more of the links in your earlier comments made WordPress think it was spam.

    FYI, even comments that aren’t treated as spam by WordPress will still be made to wait for moderation (a different folder than spam) if there are more than three links in the comment. If you need to post more than three links, try breaking your comment up in to smaller pieces with no more than three links each.

  17. Ryan,
    FYI, your comment was treated as spam by WordPress, but I just retrieved it from the spam folder.

  18. Aaron says:

    Mr. Host, you are correct, only one of those posts was intended to go up on the page. After the first one didn’t show up, my assumption was that it failed to post for being too long (has happened before), thus I continually refined and shortened it to finally fit. I was not aware of the multiple links filter and will keep in mind for future posting.

    Actually Ryan, you only stated that massive amounts of bio-activity occur in desert regions, and you only provided one reason later, and that reason depended on you adding a part about air decomposition to label as false what I said earlier. The other reason you stated didn’t hold up against dry climate/wind caused erosion precluding the burial of any substantial amount of bio-mass to necessary to become the vast amount of oil pumped out of the deserts now. For kelp, yes it can grow taller than trees, but it is also has very little mass when compared to trees. Compare the weight of a given volume of gathered (and dried) kelp to the same volume of dry wood.

    For human density, yes I can measure human density by volume by including the air up to 1km above the land as part of that volume measurement. Humans are 3D and have volume and density, so yes the measure of human density is quite relevant. Further, the total bio-mass of humanity is actually ~474,640,000 metric tons. Unless krill is 5x that number, krill density is actually far lower.

    While the neanderthal part was wrong, dismissing the entire work for that one part is pure gamesmanship. Of course human evolution is the most studied area within the theory, humans are doing the studying. Evolutionitsts continually ignore evidence contrary to evolution, hence why you never hear anything of their failed expirement to evolve fruit flies. Further, nothing makes multiple theories of humanity’s origin(s) mutually exclusive.

  19. Every time the Democrat[ic Soclialist]s restrict us from accessing our own oil, (whether that be in the Gulf, in oil shale, or in ANWR), we are sending money to Communist and Islamic countries to buy oil that we could have acquired ourselves.

    For 40 years, every time we pay at the gas pump, we have been funding the Islamic Revival

    From a Western perspective, two of the most important events that inspired the resurgence were the Arab oil embargo and subsequent quadrupling of the price of oil in the mid 1970s, and the 1979 Iranian Revolution that established an Islamic republic in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini. The first created a flow of many billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia to fund Islamic books, scholarships, fellowships, and mosques around the world…

    Drill Here! Drill Now!

  20. UPDATE:
    Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’

    …the Himalayan claim wasn’t based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data — but on speculation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

    Was science even a real concern for the IPCC?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s