No account yet?
Subscription Options
Subscribe via RSS, or
Free Email Alert

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail alert with links to Dallas Blog posts.

New Site Search
Bill DeOre
Click for Larger Image
Dallas Sports Blog
Local Team Sports News
The Official Site of the Dallas Mavericks
TEX Homepage News

A feed could not be found at

Stars Recent Headlines
Good News Dallas
The Rising Climate of Change Print E-mail
by Paul Perry    Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 06:46 AM

Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition to contradict what they regard as the myth of manmade global warming, according to Access To Energy, a science newsletter. In order to be eligible to sign the agreement, one has to have a degree in the physical sciences. As I understand it, psychologists and anthropologists can’t sign; neither is Al Gore qualified to do so.

Conversely, a United Nations initiative to have scientists sign a petition in agreement with the manmade global warming theory was fraught with controversy. Many of the signatories turned out not to be scientists, some turned out to be uncredentialed aides (I guess they happened to be hanging around in the halls) and at least one scientist decided after reviewing newer research that he wanted his name removed and is suing to make that happen, as the U.N. decided to use his name anyway as do others.

Scientists complaining of having their government and other research grants threatened for not signing on to the most extreme manmade global warming initiatives abound. Other scientists who have publicly opposed the theory have lost their research grants. Respected French scientist Claud Allegre reports that he changed his views at a high personal cost.

President Barack Hussein Obama was in Copenhagen recently where he was cheerleading an effort by U.N. negotiators to make energy more expensive for all of us using the U.N.-endorsed catastrophic view of climate change as a pretext. All the while, he was turning a more or less deaf ear on an American general who was suggesting that we need more troops in Afghanistan.

Washington, D.C., papers are reporting tiny bit of movement on getting some troops to Afghanistan, and the president is continuing his effort to bury U.S. energy production in United Nations bureaucracy. The so-called Copenhagen Accords seek to do what the administration’s Cap and Trade domestic agenda also will do: raise the price of carbon-based energy for all of us – that’s anything with a carbon molecule, including coal, natural gas, gasoline and diesel – while allowing large industry to purchase off-sets that will be sold on something like a commodities market.

Eventually you may have to purchase such off-sets or credits, as well, depending on the size of your house and how much you drive. One proposal, still alive in the legislation, is that people who live in a house over 2600 square feet will have to pay a surtax to the federal government. That shouldn’t go over very well at Spring Creek Crossing, West Main Street and most of Ovilla, much less with those of us who live in 30-year-old ranch-style homes that need a coat of paint.

As I said, these off-sets will be traded on an exchange. The price will vary. I bet a lot. No doubt the good folks down at Goldman Sachs are licking their chops over this little scheme. The same kind of thinking the Clinton administration used to force mortgage issuers to insure marginal housing loans that were declared marketable by the administration is being used by the Obama administration to create a false market in pollution credits. If you create a market to achieve a narrow social result, it will backfire.

The Copenhagen-based negotiations are seeking to do very similar things on an international scale. If our Senate votes to agree to a U.N. agreement on climate change, then we will be required by law to implement the scheme, including an international market in pollution credits, unless a subsequent administration withdraws before implementation. Opportunities for market manipulation abound.

Interestingly enough, while President Obama has frozen additional offshore oil and gas exploration in our country, he supported giving Brazil a loan to increase offshore oil and gas exploration there. On the one hand, we are told oil and gas consumption is bad for the climate, but our president seems OK with foreigners doing it. He is even willing to have you pay for it.

Earlier this summer, investigations of the oil futures market was threatened by a democratically controlled Congress, and there were even a few growls in support from the administration. Such talk has all but disappeared as oil and gasoline futures have advanced and your price at the pump is starting to rise. Why? In a real market, no one could justify these prices in a global recession. The dollar hasn’t fallen enough in recent months to justify current prices, in my opinion.

Is this market being manipulated in some way? Perhaps. The Left accused everyone of that when a Republican was president.

Why the silence now? Because whether the market is being manipulated or not, higher prices serve our current regime’s agenda.

Higher prices make punishing conventional providers more palatable to the ignorant. At the same time, the administration is taking measures to ensure our domestic production of oil and gas drops while loaning money to a cash-rich nation to increase its oil and gas production and enrich that country.

Is Obama really interested in being America’s president or the world’s?

Paul D. Perry

Share This Story on Facebook
Comments (4)add comment
written by rodney ramsey , October 21, 2009

The Copenhagen Treaty is a direct threat to our sovereignty being pushed by a liberal President hell-bent on destroying our Nation.
Why would we agree to redistribute wealth to third world nations because of a "carbon" footprint? Since when is it a good idea to pay a third world country for being a third world country. Since when is it a good idea to punish our Nation for being successful?
This treaty is nothing more than a front to a bigger agenda..and that is to destroy America as we know it.
Personally I have no use for the United Nations and believe it to be nothing more than a direct threat to our sovereignty and freedoms. It needs to be in Europe with all the liberal/socialist countries who support it...perhaps France would be a good place...just so long as it's out of the US.
This Great Nation has always stood freedom and democracy. We have stood against tyranny and evil throughout the world for over 200 years...and now we are on the brink of destruction. Not from a foreign power, despot, or dictatorship, but from within.
How much more can we take? Here is a good quote from website...see if it rings a bell...
“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing.”
Daniel Webster (June 1, 1837)

What else do we need to know?

written by Duff Hale , October 21, 2009

Manmade (anthropogenic) global warming is a hoax and nothing more than a vehicle to get more-and-more government intrusion into our lives. Hopefully more information is coming out now that global warming just is not happening and people will wise up to the fact the mainstream media is nuts.

written by G S , October 22, 2009

I’m an agnostic on man-made global warming but am sure of the following:
a)The world has been cooling for the last 11 years. None of the models used to predict global temperatures predicted this. Clearly changes in solar output is a (the?) major factor in global temperature changes. Until computer models deal accurately with this, basing national policy on these defective models is worse than foolish.
b)China, India, and other third world countries have been the major sources of increases in global CO2 production in the last 15 years. They have little interest in curtailing their own economic growth. Until these nations agree to and actually practice limitations to CO2 production, any global warming treaty (if actually followed) will serve only to destroy the economies of the United States and Europe.

written by Ken Dickson , October 22, 2009

Paul, Rodney, & Duff, you all are "right on"! The Obama/Al Gore crowd is such a collection of "out of the mainstream" folks, who know nothing but tax & come up with some other plan to destroy America! These theories will make us a "third world" country if allowed to continue to "Run Amok"! Let us pray that the voter will wake up to these thieves & send them back to whatever hole they crawled out of!

Write comment
smaller | bigger

< Prev   Next >