Green Fees

According to Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool some of the people some of the time …but not all of the people all of the time”, but Abe was wrong. All of the people can be fooled all of the time, and Al Gore is just one of the many charlatans who’ve made monkeys out of us.

Thanks to him, Americans have been convinced that “greening” is a more important issue than having a steady job. It’s all part of the “business of fear”, of course, and it’s all accomplished by means of a controlled press, the headlines of which provide all the learning that semi-literate Americans ever need. And audiences would laugh when Will Rogers pointed that out.

The following statement was released on February 27, 1992 by the Science & Environmental Policy Project. It didn’t appear in the controlled press because Americans need to be kept in the dark – they need to be fooled. Not to worry, though – they wouldn’t have read the release anyway.

“As independent scientists researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental and activist groups and certain political leaders. The so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

“Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.

“A survey of atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

“Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

“Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

“We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.”-

The following scientists affixed their signatures to the above release:

– David B. Aubrey, PhD, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
– Nathaniel P. Guttman, PhD, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center.
– Hugh B. Ellsaesser, PhD, Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.
– Richard Lindzen, PhD, Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
– Robert C. Balling, PhD, Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University.
– Patrick Michaels, PhD, Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia.
– Roger Pielke, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.
– Michael Garstang, PhD, Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia.
– Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory.
– Lev S. Gandin, PhD, Visiting Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
– John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA.
– H. Jean Thiebaux, PhD, Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOAAS.
– Kenneth V. Beard, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois.
– Paul W. Mielke, Jr., PhD, Professor, Department of Statistics, Colorado State University.
– Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute.
– Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director.
– Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service.
– Gabriel T. Csanady, PhD, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University.
– Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services.
– Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force.
– Neil L. Frank, PhD, Meteorologist.
– Michael S. Uhart, PhD, Meteorologist, National Weather Service.
– Bruce A. Boe, PhD, Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board.
– Andrew Detwiler, PhD, Assoc. Professor, Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.
– Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society.
– Stephen R. Hanna, PhD, Sigma Research Corporation.
– Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.
– William E. Reifsnyder, PhD, Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University.
– David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist.
– Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Ocean Routes, Inc.
– Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Test Missile Center.
– Werner A. Baum, PhD, Former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University.
– David P. Rogers, PhD, Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
– Brian Fiedler, PhD, Asst. Professor of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma.
– Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist.
– Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOAA.
– Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College.
– James A. Moore, Project manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
– Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering.
– Brian Sussman, Meteorologist.
– Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society.
– H. Read McGrath, PhD, Meteorologist.
– Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist.
– William M. Porch, PhD, Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
– Earle R. Williams, PhD, Associate Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
– S. Fred Singer, PhD, Atmospheric Physicist, University of Virginia, Director, Science & Environmental Policy Project.

“Greening”, global warming, CO2, radiation exposure – these are some of the things that are being crammed down the throats of dumbed-down Americans, and that’s about all the man-on-the-street knows about the environment.

It never occurs to the average John or Jane that misdirected funds by the billions are being pocketed by politicians who care nothing about the welfare of their fellow Americans. Jobs? Forget it. The deficit has to be reduced and the environment has to be protected. That just means that there’s nothing left for job creation. Nothing. Not a dime.

We have money for the military-industrial complex, however. We just read that the contract for another Arleigh Burke-class destroyer was awarded to Ingalls Shipbuilding. Like, we really need another DDG. We only have 60 on active duty, and each one costs a lot more than $ 1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) to build, and more than $ 20,000,000 for its annual operations. The program calls for three such vessels to be built every year. Don’t do the math. You’ll throw up.

There are a number of reasons for this senseless waste of taxpayer money and one of them is to maintain the few hundred jobs at places like Ingalls Shipbuilding. It’s called make-work. It’s not the most important reason, of course, but it’s worth talking about. With one billion dollars U.S. shipyards could build 20 of our internationally patented container ships. All in one yard? No. A number of yards would be required and thousands and thousands of new jobs would be created. Just a fraction of the many billions of dollars being spent annually on naval operations would be sufficient to revitalize dozens of dormant U.S. shipyards, create millions of new employment opportunities, and almost overnight the nation’s unemployment woes would be behind us.

Yes, just a fraction. According to The Federation of American Scientists the annual cost (back in 1993, by the way) to keep just one of our eleven super carriers on active duty was $ 245,000,000. We can only guess at what that cost is in 2011 dollars. We could be – we should be – building, owning, and crewing thousands of merchant ships for a fraction of that money, and we’d be none the worse for wear. We’d still out-gun all the navies in the world, and we’d be enjoying the multi-billions of dollars of income produced by our merchant ships in the meantime.

Can you think of a better way to reduce the deficit and eliminate unemployment?