This just in: " Islam causes Islam's Woes "

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at January 24, 2007 8:56 PM

Actually, it's the jihadists who cause the global warming. It happens every time they open their mouths.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 24, 2007 8:58 PM

Oh, c'mon! Global warming will end Jihad. After all, once the ice caps melt and all the worlds get flooded, all people will ultimately get submerged, and either evolve to become aquatic mammals, or become extinct all together. And that will take care of the Jihadis too.

And to think we're all sweating over how to prevail over this ideology!

Hugh

You need to switch over, and start supporting global warming.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 24, 2007 8:59 PM

Gee, its dry, hot and I'm hungry. That's reason enough for me to kill.
Religion of peace? Religion of nuts as far as I'm concerned.
And please leave climate change out of the Islamic jihad syndrome. The climate has been in systematic change since recorded history so you can forget that excuse.

Posted by: havekoranwilltravel at January 24, 2007 9:03 PM

Technically speaking, OPEC is reasponsible for ALL the oil-related pollution on this planet, so I feel it's THEIR responsibility to clean it up.

AND ... half of our daily balance of payments deficity -- or $1 billion a day -- is spent on foreign oil. Half of that winds up buying Johnny Walker Gold for the Saudi Royal Family -- or in the hands of Al Qaeda.

So, technically speaking, OPEC is responsible for all the pollution in the world and for most of the radical Islamism. So they have a lot of cleaning up to do: (1) the environment and (2) the heads of the people they've screwed up.

I suggest the 20,000 members of the royal family cut their monthly stipends from $30,000 a month to $5,000 a month and put the rest of it into tracking down and burning the one million Wahhabi Qur'ans (with annotations excoriated Christians and Jews), and firing the 26 imams who openly told Saudi youths to go to Iraq and kill Americans. Now there's all this whining in the Saudi newspapers by Saudi parents who've lost more than 2,000 of their sons in suicide attacks and are blaming the Saudi imams for it (rightly so).

But by the time the renaissance burgeoning in Jiddah reaches the rest of the country (including the little rat's nest of Ikhwan in the south), things will only be worse elsewhere.

Meanwhile, our dear Shrub has granted 15,000 student visas to Saudi Arabia. They will, of course, all be male. And they will, or course, all be radical Wahhabi.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 24, 2007 9:18 PM

2 Corinthians 8:9
For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Yeah, must have been global warming that has caused all the poor people in history to sever their neighbor's heads and lop off their limbs.

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at January 24, 2007 9:21 PM

A dozen or so years ago, when it looked as if something might actually be done to limit the use of oil, the Saudis immediately began insisting that "of course" the Western world would, if it dared to cut its use of oil, to make it up to Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC -- by sending them foreign aid.

Think about that request for a minute. And think about the fact that at the time, no one mocked them, no one got angry, no one got indignant.

Posted by: Hugh at January 24, 2007 9:28 PM

Wow, Al Gore and OBL finally agree on something.

Posted by: Bar at January 24, 2007 9:39 PM

Bill Clinton made a speech to this same effect at Georgetown in the months after 9-11.

Liberals despise traditional western civilization, and they will take any and every opportunity to attack and undermine it.

Posted by: Guillermox at January 24, 2007 9:39 PM

For Hugh:

Former CIA Director Woolsey, speaking in New York at a Middle East Forum briefing lats fall, talked about the Saudi's use of their own strategic oil reserves to collapse U.S. investment in alternative energy technologies. They did it twice: in the 1980s and in the 1990s. Woolsey said -- and Holdren at Harvard agrees -- that the U.S. need to stabilize the price of oil at $60 a barrel and NOT lower it when the Saudis do this so they can't manipulate the oil market. And we need to move to switch grass ethanol (NOT CORN -- what a RACKET!!!) as fast as we can.

Over my dead body will the Saudis get a penny of foreign aid from me. They'll have to rip that little Prada purse right out of my cold dead fingers to get it.

But lucky for them, the same technology that pumps oil also pumps water. And that could make the Rub al Kali the breadbasket of the Middle East. Not that they deserve it, but there it is.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 24, 2007 9:40 PM

A dozen or so years ago, when it looked as if something might actually be done to limit the use of oil, the Saudis immediately began insisting that "of course" the Western world would, if it dared to cut its use of oil, to make it up to Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC -- by sending them foreign aid.

Posted by: Hugh at January 24, 2007 09:28 PM

In retrospect the worst thing the West ever did was looking for oil in the Middle East-and finding it. Had that not happened the West would have ended up finding a different fuel to replace coal and the Mideast (and Islam) today would be as developed and as relevant as Togo (apologies to Togo for any insult). But that oil was found and here we are today, tied to a bunch of homicidal maniacs.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 24, 2007 9:46 PM

"You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries," al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden wrote in a 2002 "letter to the American people."

This reminds me (almost word for word) of the hypocritical Soviet accusations against the US re the environment in the decades prior to the collapse of the USSR, and then after the collapse of the USSR (which in a sense, began with the meltdown of their nuclear reactor at Chernobyl in 1986) the world found out that their social policies and their environmental policies were such that they severely damaged people, severely damaged the environment, and in fact USSR pollution was so bad that it resulted in fish with multiple eyes in the Volga River. Such is this OBL nonsense-hypocrisy.

The Arab Gulf states are wealthy because of the industrialized nations buying gas. Saudi Arabia is among the most successful family run gas stations in the world, and the home of OBL. He benifitted from gas. But soon, perhaps in 10 years, the world will say goodbye to "air polluting" gas, to Muslim gas.

Posted by: Frank at January 24, 2007 9:47 PM

Hugh wrote: In retrospect the worst thing the West ever did was looking for oil in the Middle East-and finding it.

No kidding. There is a rumor, which I hope is true, that the now-ruling branch of the Saudis are trying to shift Wahhabis into the eighth madabh and then declare Wahhabism no longer the state religions of Saudi Arabia. That would help. But unfortunately, even if they did it now, what's been spread to other places in the world is the worst possible interpretation.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 24, 2007 9:52 PM

Palestinians beaten at Guilford College

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_re_us/guilford_assault_4

Yet another 'Duke Lacrosse' case. Note how sickeningly cowardly our mass media is, how they're jump to convict those Americans boys of racism and hate crimes and nobody even raises the possibility that the nice peaceful Palestinians might be guilty.

(BTW, I am SO GLAD that asshole Nifong is going to be disbarred. Too bad the dean of the school is not forced to resign.)

Posted by: george_rem at January 24, 2007 10:17 PM

"A dozen or so years ago, when it looked as if something might actually be done to limit the use of oil, the Saudis immediately began insisting that "of course" the Western world would, if it dared to cut its use of oil, to make it up to Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC -- by sending them foreign aid."

"Think about that request for a minute. And think about the fact that at the time, no one mocked them, no one got angry, no one got indignant."
Posted by: Hugh at January 24, 2007 09:28 PM

Agreed, and quoted for emphasis.

You might be on to "something" there, Hugh. The question that beckons is "Why?". Please elaborate.

Posted by: awake at January 24, 2007 10:19 PM

"Had that not happened the West would have ended up finding a different fuel to replace coal and the Mideast (and Islam) today would be as developed and as relevant as Togo (apologies to Togo for any insult). But that oil was found and here we are today"

Actually, there've been a lot of non-scientists that have come up with alternate fuels, including free energy. THey've put together machinery - very promising,but the funding for more was cut, because the international oil corporations will NOT allow it. Alternate fuel has been supressed. Obviously, the oil corps. are hand in glove with the saudis (cameltoes be upon them). The oil corps. don't give a $h _t about us, or their grandchildren.

I heard from various sources that there are a great many oil wells right here in this country, but they're been capped, and they'e not saying where.

Posted by: allat at January 24, 2007 10:27 PM

This just in: global warming causes jihad!

posted by Robert

I know this is a joke, but like a lot of the jokes on The Daily Show (when it used to be genuinely witty), this has some truth to it. If we start developing alternative fuels, we won't fuel the Saudi rats' ability to foment jihad all over the planet. Because of that oil money, madrassahs in Pakistan, the UK and even the US get the means to spread their vile message.

Posted by: wrathofasma at January 24, 2007 10:51 PM

Well I know The jihadis would find any reason to justify their war, which they thmeslves know is unjust nor justified.
But to blame global warming.
Oh my god that is hilarious.

Well tommorow they will blame the computers and the technology was responsible for their woes.

Or will the blame Graham bell for inventing the phone becasue it opened better communiation.

Or will they blame the Wright brothers for inventing the plane. Well atleast they should thank the Wright brothers or 911 would have never happened.

Will they????????

Oh no I am sorry.I think the Americans should blame the wright brothers for 9/11 because if they had not invented the plane then how would 9/11 have happened.

Sorry couldnt resist making that joke :P:P:P

But on a serious note, The islamic radicals will try to dig out any reason to justify killing of non muslims because thats what they are taught since they are kids.

Posted by: Rajesh_singh at January 24, 2007 11:21 PM

This just in: global warming causes jihad!

posted by Robert

Not on!

Jihad causes global warming!

Had the total cost and effort used to date to fight global jihad been directed towards global warming and saving the planet, the world might have been in much better shape. A world without wars, and the costs of these wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, 9/11, the embassy bombings, 7/7, 3/11, the French riots, just to name a few, increased airport security, increased policing of jihadi's and terrorists, all the money given to Islam as appeasement, all the costs of the damage caused, and loss of human life costs caused by jihad, and all monies used in opposing jihad (this scourge afflicting the planet), humanity would have been in a much better position to address, and attempt to reverse global environmental damage. The coming nuclear confrontation, and the damage it will cause, could well be the last nail in the earth's coffin. All of this thanks to Islam, Muhammad's wily means of controlling his followers.

Posted by: Dsinc at January 24, 2007 11:21 PM

"Those who are short of food, those who are short of water, those who can't move to countries where it looks as if everything is marvelous are going to be people who are going to adopt desperate measures to try and make their point."

So THAT'S what motivated the 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, and Bali goons? Dang, if we'd only known that, we could've simply delivered those guys some care packages, a case of Evian, directions to local food banks, and allowed them to move to "marvelous" USA, Spain, Britain, and Australia (oops, scratch last part...already done).

But really, knowing the USA snubbed the Kyoto treaty is enough to make anyone suicidal-homicidal, yes?

Posted by: yadayada at January 24, 2007 11:55 PM

30yrs ago, I had to debate- GLOBAL WARMING
There wasn't any hope for us then.

How many fish are in the ocean,when compared to 100yrs ago?

Posted by: holy warrior at January 25, 2007 12:04 AM

Just when you thought you had heard all the excuses....bam!

Global Warming....

This ranks as the dumbest of all excuses. Only a complete left-wing nut who as smoked too much pot could have come up this nonsense.

I can't wait to see Dougie Hooper and CAIR join Greenpeace in we love the world...or worst Dougie planting a tree for nature and telling us Muhammad was green and loved nature...

God help us....double our nightmare...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 25, 2007 12:41 AM

Ha. "An Inconvenient Truth" meets "An Inconvenient Terrorist." It's a match made in Hollywood.

The hollowness of bin Laden's ecological greivance against America from 2002 escapes this crowd as UBL or any other terrorist/jihdist has not made the environment any part of their subsequent pronouncements. If the terrorists were that committed to environmental concerns as this conference would have us beleive, then they would be unrelenting in it's promotion.

Posted by: pbares at January 25, 2007 12:52 AM

As an environmentalist/climate scientist, as well as a so-called "liberal" but one who is immensely concerned about Islamofascism, I find this completely bizarre.

I partly agree with ISLAMSFORLOSERS who said "Actually, it's the jihadists who cause the global warming. It happens every time they open their mouths." However, I think those in the Middle East are fueling the problem (no pun intended) by sending their gross sums of cash made by the oil beneath the sands to terrorist groups.

If we are to reduce the funds sent to terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, we must reduce our use of oil. We must cripple these psychotic groups financially so they cannot acquire the weaponry and explosives they desire to blow up stuff and kill innocent people.

Also, if we wish to live in peace, security, and stability, we must ensure that millions of environmental refugees (especially those from Islamic nations such as Bangladesh, Somalia, and Pakistan) need not migrate to our nations as a result of rising sea levels. We must make sure they are able to remain in their home countries, otherwise we run the risk of further infiltration by Islamists.

Posted by: Iceberg at January 25, 2007 1:17 AM

Shouldn't OBL be executed for shirk now thats he's switched over from Allah to Gaia? Or is the earth mother protecting him in her caves? In the pantheon of make- believe gods I'm pretty sure Gaia can kick Allah's moon god's ass.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at January 25, 2007 1:36 AM

While global warming may have occurred in the last 100 years, It is still small compared to the Medieval warming. The so called link between global warming and CO2 is a hoax that ranks with, or even higher, than Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds". Singer and Avery bring the GW lie to the light of day with their new book "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 years".

At least Welles' radio program did not cost the people anything, although some did die from fright.

The liberal mandates of the GW hoax on CO2 will set the US and the world back to the stone age.

Enter the Islamists who also want to return to the stone age! The GW believers in the Church of Global Warming will unite with the Islamists to bring the world to its knees. Yeah! Allah Akbar! All aboard for Mecca!

But GW believers - watch your back; they are not your friends. Really.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at January 25, 2007 2:07 AM

Gerbil worming

*chuckle*

Use teeny tiny tablets and try to incorporate them into the gerbil's food somehow.
What a crock.

Sorry, but I can't take this stuff seriously.
More of the cultural war campaign against the big bad Western Civilization.
Destroyers of mother Gaia.
The source of all evil.

Get a grip people.
I'm still waiting for the Ice Age promised in the 1970's.

Here's a light look at heavy doom mongering.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17645

An excerpt :
"There are many more examples of the media’s and scientists’ flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares. Here is a quote from a New York Times report on fears of an approaching ice age: “Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.” That sentence appeared more than 100 years ago in the Feb. 24, 1895, edition of the New York Times.

A front-page article in the Oct. 7, 1912, New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”

The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An Aug. 10, 1923, Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”

By the 1930s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming. “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

An Aug. 9, 1923, front-page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: “Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”

A Dec. 29, 1974, New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.”

The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “a major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.” These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring."

Posted by: Mike_W at January 25, 2007 4:05 AM

How many fish are in the ocean,when compared to 100yrs ago?
Posted by: holy warrior

Answer: 10%

Too many humans. All other problems flow from that - environmental, social, political.

Soon enough, there wont be. Old mother nature only knows one way to sort out her problems. Go ask a lemming.

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at January 25, 2007 6:36 AM

Global warming causes jihad??! I beg to differ but I'm considering the 'chicken salad causes jihad' theory...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at January 25, 2007 6:47 AM

OH BIG BROTHER!!!!
CANDA HAS LOTS OF WATER AND IS (ARAB FRIENDLY)> WE COULD USE SOME OF THIER OIL
YOU KNOW DAD pays $600CDN/WK for OIL

Posted by: holy warrior at January 25, 2007 7:19 AM

There is an often completely ignored fact the the sun spot activity has been increasing resulting in hotter than normal solar heat...This has been scientifically proven...

A lot of people have their underwear pulled up too tight on this "global warming...nonsense..

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 25, 2007 7:34 AM

Holy Warrior:

We have our share of useful idiots, but Canada ain't all that "Arab friendly".

As for Crispin Tickell's theory, it is only slightly less ridiculous than R. Fisk's theory of last winter that wars in the Middle East were the cause of the unusually cold winter in such countries as Pakistan and Lebanon and unusually mild winter in southern Ontario. Meteorologists, however, pinpointed the blame on a once-in-a-century fluke mislocation of the Polar Vortex.

As for OBL and his desert-dwelling confreres blaming the industrialized west for dispoilling the earth, you'd never know who was responsible for turning formerly fertile lands into deserts by destroying forests and poor agricultural management and who was responsible for restoring the fertility of vacant lands in the heart of the Levant.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at January 25, 2007 7:41 AM

IF CANADA IS LIKE THAT- TO THIER SHAME
BEFORE JESUS( OUR GOD)
I apoligize as a CANADIAN

Posted by: holy warrior at January 25, 2007 7:57 AM

FOR ICEBERG ...

Looks like I'm right where you are. Interestingly, James Woolsey and John Holdren co-chair the National Commission for Energy. Holdren gave a lecture here at Harvard last month. Here is the video of the lecture if you'd like to look at it, although you are probably already aware of it. Woolsey is much more of the national security and economy side of this, whereas Holdren, who is director of Woods Hole Oceanographic as well as a professor at Harvard, takes a much more environmental slant.

Putting the two of them together, you find a trine of potentially devastating threats -- all three centered in oil, the buying of oil, the burning of oil, and the use of petrodollars to fund a war against the West and everything non-Wahhabi.

Thanks for your sane post. Conservation was INITIALLY a conservative issue and should be again. It's interesting that here in Massachusetts people can still remember the time when the Republican governor of Massachusetts and the Democrat governor Oregon worked together on some of the first programs to protect salt marshes (where most of the food fish lay their eggs), prevent dumping on toxins into the rivers (so that we don't eventually drink them or eat them in our food). I am looking forward to a time when that is true again. Politicization of the issue has damaged both sides, while the average 7-year-old who will wind up cleaning up this mess is the real victim.

Hope you enjoy Dr. Holdren's lecture. There's a lot of good information and solid science here.

http://www.environment.harvard.edu/video/future_of_energy/holdren2/presentation.html

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 25, 2007 8:27 AM

FOR EXSGTBROWN

Yes, the sun's activity over the last 15 years has been extraordinary, with the effect (according to recent Danish study) that the sun's electromagnetic winds have been so strong they have blocked the normal background radiation of supernovae from getting into our atmosphere. That's a problem because the supernovae "light" is something that winds up regulating low-level cloud formation. Those clouds, close to the earth, have a cooling effect on the earth generally, prevent the absorption of solar radiation (and conversion to heat) by the earth's crust. If this continues, that alone could cause of a very significant problem.

However, this is not an argument that resolves the crisis of particulate matter created by the burning of fossil fuels that prevents the heat of solar radiation from being vented off into space.

IN FACT, IT ACCELERATES AND EXACERBATES THE PROBLEM.

Therefore, not only is the heightened coronal mass ejection problem an excuse for ignoring data on fossil fuel damage to the environment -- it is actually a reason for us to be MORE, NOT LESS CAUTIOUS about what we do, and to move as fast as we can to cut use of fossil fuels.

In this event, it is not a case of S (solar radiation) plus P (pollution) = GW (global warming).

It's a case of (S x P)to the 49th power = GW.

Wakey, wakey, folks! Environmentalism, economy and terrorism are not separate issues now. They're the same issue, and if you know what's good for you, you'll do thing in your power to TAKE ENERGY from terrorists (the only way to defeat a bully, as they use all the energy you give them, positive or negative). TAKE ENERGY from them by taking oil revenue from them.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 25, 2007 8:37 AM

From Neal Boortz:

"THINGS YOU CAN BLAME ON GLOBAL WARMING

You know, of course, that if anything goes wrong in your life today it will be because of global warming. I've started a small list of the things that we already know are being cause by global warming ... we'll add to it later.

The Saints' loss to the da Bears
The Flu
An increase in pit bull attacks
Citrus canker
That screaming brat on that AirTran flight
Wolf Blitzer
Alan Colmes' eyebrow
My loss of hair
Britney's crotch shot
Diana's car crash
Everything happening in Somalia
Your credit card bills
Liberal professors
Sand fleas
Most botched circumcisions Kerry's tears
Dropped cell phone calls
Pop-up advertisements
Red lights
Cruise ship dysentery
Teen smoking
Hideous prom dresses
Dennis Rodman
Screaming car dealer commercials
Slow drivers in the left lane
Al Franken
Fever blisters
Slow elevators
Belinda's migraines
Virtually all paper cuts "

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 25, 2007 8:59 AM

We know this is true.
After all this very minute there are Midwestern farmers fomenting retrobution for frezzing without power for weeks.
They are going to trash our cities because thats what caused the severe winter storms that killed their friends and family members in their autos, etc. Not to mention how irate they are at their lose of livestock. You know how they revere their livestock out there in the hinterlands.

People will be dragged from their gas guzzling SUVs all over the intersate. Just as soon as they get the snow cleared, that is.

sarcasm off
Aunt Bea

Posted by: auntbea at January 25, 2007 10:14 AM

Try "The Sky Is Falling" causes global Jihad ..

Posted by: drk at January 25, 2007 10:16 AM

So many things to say, so little time. So fossil fuel causes global warming? First what is the opposite of GW? Global cooling I believe, and humans and animals can live in a warm environment much better than a cold one. Second, they say that fossil fuel is responsible, that’s what they say now, but it wont stop there it never does. Eventually the same people will be saying that human existence alone is responsible for all the worlds ills, so the next logical step, exterminating people in the name of GW. Third, 20 years ago it was, the world is going to freeze enter another iceage, not. Fourth, the islamists are attempting to take over the world, and are being aided by some untellectuals/wacademics right here in the west, so I don’t believe what most of them say period. Fifth, if the islamists succeed with their plan I don’t care how hot we leave it for them, what do you want a really nice day for your family to be wiped out? Nice weather for your stoning? GW, another leftard distraction from the biggest dangers we face, but many will do anything, believe anything as long as it gets their minds off the really hideous happenings here on Earth. How ridiculous, they won’t fight the islamists but they care about the environment. Retardation and mental illness run rampant today, the rets and ments are out there making policy for all of us. Save the world, manipulate the earth and solar system but forget about the islamists, oh brother.

Posted by: tgusa at January 25, 2007 10:23 AM

Global warming is definitely caused by islamic flatulence. They got hot air coming out of both ends.

To hear bin laden talk about Global warming sure makes me laugh! The Sowdis in their air-conditioned private jumbo jets should be the last to talk about anyone! And if anyone can find new technologies that will get us off using oil that would be the West - and it will be done in the face of the most vicious efforts by the sowdis to stop us from exploring these new technologies.

Bin laden's use of Global warming merely shows that he is desperate and he was cynically playing to the Global Left. Too bad that there are even some people who consider this transparent ploy as anything but. Shows how desperate and bankrupt the left has now become.

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 25, 2007 11:57 AM

"I heard from various sources that there are a great many oil wells right here in this country, but they're been capped, and they'e not saying where."

Texas, Wyoming, Montana, Oklahoma etc. etc. It's not that we don't have enough oil in non-Opec countries, it's just that the environmentalists make it so difficult to produce and refine oil, that it's cheaper to buy it from Opec.

That's not to say that we have an unlimited supply, but we do have enough to keep us going until we develop viable alternatives. It's been 30 years since we built a new refinery in this country. It takes 10 years to build one (after all of the permitting/protesting process is complete).

We won't allow drilling in ANWR, off the coast of California or the Coast of Florida out of fear that we might have a spill to cleanup some day. Instead of producing oil and gas between Florida and Cuba, Fidel is letting China drill and pump oil between Florida and Cuba.

If we are willing to pay a little more for a gallon of gas, rein in the environmentalists a little bit and start a "man on the moon in ten years" type project for alternative fuels, we can reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil (and refined gasoline).

Sorry about the rant.

Posted by: walterc at January 25, 2007 12:36 PM

Thanks, Morgaan Sinclair, for the link. It looks like a worthwhile presentation to watch.

As an aside from issues associated with Islamic extremism in this thread, I've noticed some not-so-solid science on this site. To counter it, I will present a few links on the science of global warming (climate change) to counter some of the myths (such as solar radiation being the cause of the last 150 years or so of warming).

Real Climate:

http://www.realclimate.org

A Few Things Ill Considered:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

especially:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

The Heat is Online:

http://www.heatisonline.org/main.cfm

especially:

http://www.heatisonline.org/science.cfm

I hope this helps sort things out for you all.

Posted by: Iceberg at January 25, 2007 1:27 PM

I must ask...

So, the opposite of Global Warming would be Global Cooling, am I to conclude that Global Cooling would remove Terrorism and crime, and give everyone morals?

Am I to conclude during the ice age everyone was a Republican or Right Wing Conservative?

Science states that we have experienced at least two great ice ages. What caused the ice ages and the cooling? And what caused the warming that made the ice ages go away (no it was not America's fault)? It was not MAN or America in either instance.

Did someone forget to mention that muslim countries do not recognize enviromental compliance or laws? They will sign them but they don't recognize them. That is why OPEC nations fund so many enviromental groups in the west. They get laws passed that shut down the development of OUR natural resources so that we have to buy their natural resources.

And even though America did not sign the treaty we have reduced green house gases. While the countries that did sign the treaty have not complied with the Kyoto Treatie and have increased green house gases by double digits. Why is it so important for the liberal left to get America to sign these international treaties that no one complies with.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at January 25, 2007 2:07 PM

You could probably make a better case that jihad contributes to anthropogenic (human caused) global warming (AGW) than that GW causes jihad. Certainly the increase in CO2 from 285 ppm to 380 ppm since the Industrial Revolution plays a role in AGW, but so too does changes in human land use.

Most of the hottest places on Earth are deserts. Take a look at a map showing the distribution of the Earth's deserts. Now take a look at a map of the Earth's Muslim population. Just a coincidence? Under the Roman Empire North Africa was a major grain producing region. Consider what happened to the land of so called Palestine when the Jews returned to it. It bloomed again. Now look at what is happening in Darfur as farming villages are burned by the Janjaweed militia.

Jihad spreads Islam. Islam spreads deserts.

Okay so deserts are only hot in the day and at night they turn cold. Without much vegetation they can not carry much heat so their daily temperature fluctuation is greater unlike say the Amazon that doesn't have the peak temperature of the Sahara but carries a lot more heat. The jihad induced reduction in vegetation reduces CO2 absorbtion.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at January 25, 2007 3:04 PM

For ALASKA1000

There have been four ice ages in the last half-million years -- plus the Younger Dryas Period, which lasted 1,500 years between the Wisconsin/Wurm Glaciation Period, which ended 13,000 BCE and today. There was also the "Little Ice Age" in the last millennium.

Nobody is saying that Nature can't and doesn't do this all on her own. She does. [s] And she does it more often of late than she does not. The last four ice ages lasted approximately 90,000 years each, and between them was a 10,000-year period similar to the climate we have now. We are at the end of the "usual" 10,000-year period.

What is commonly called "Global Warming" should actually be called Global Climate Change. The figures are very clear that the amount of heating that has gone on in the last 150 or so years is extraordinarily over-the-top even given the fact we are closing in on a new ice anyhow (probably). Compounding the problem is the sun's incredibly high energy in the last decade and a half.

HOWEVER, the impact of particulate in the upper atmosphere and its profound impact on how much of the earth's heating from the sun's energy is allowed to escape back out into space (the norm) is NOT poor science and it is also NOT hysteria. It is not "liberal Leftism". It is also not a lie. It is also no laughing matter.

In combination with the loss of low-level clouds, whose white tops reflect solar rays back out into space, the loss of WHITE glaciers, which also reflect light, creates an exponential melting situation. As soon as sunlight reaches rock beneath glacies, the rock heats, and the glaciers start to melt from underneath. Volcanic activity, which follows the same general patterns as the sun cycles (+2 years) is also a concern.

Also, when the Sumatra-Andamon quake occurred in 2004 (the one that generated the tsunami) it broke the earth's crust for more than 1,000 miles, with the result that the earth is now actually larger, and the ocean bedrock around the fault break is hotter, heating the sea.

ENSO cycles which were 15 years apart in the year 1500 CE are now only 8 years apart, creating faster peak-trough oscillation in terms of atmospheric isobars.

Now, the best thing humanity can do to forestall the next ice age is this: DO NOT EXACERBATE THESE PROBLEMS OUT OF SHEER GREED, EGO, AND SELFISHNESS.

It's good to remember that the difference between our idyllic weather interstice and an ice age is just 5 degrees centigrade to the colder side. Can you possibly imagine what this planet would look like 5 degrees to the HOTTER side? And what happens when you go hotter and hotter and hotter is that you reach that tipping point where you trip an ice age. That is what those of us in the concerned public and environmental management are trying to prevent. The earth's mean temperature has risen 1.5 degrees centigrade in the last 150 years -- and one-third of that has happened in the last 14 years. The year 2005 was the hottest year for mean earth temperature in the last one million years.

Now I completely applaud and join those who take a circumspect and conservative viewpoint on radical Islamism. I think I have more than established that I do as well, while I wholeheartedly support moderates in standing up to such problems inside their own religion and would hope people would stop attacking them.

However, the general mindset among conservatives seems to be based on emotional blustering rather than science. It's extremely ill-informed and does the conversatives an extreme disservice.

Global climate change of the type we are experiencing now -- which has both natural and manmade causes -- is extremely dangerous, and we should do everything possibile to minimize OUR impact in the hopes of exacerbating natural cycles that are really threatening us now. High sun, ENSO and Atlantic conveyor belt cycles are convering now, and that is NOT good. But the loss of the glaciers to atmospheric warming caused by particulate matter may well be mostly OUR fault.

And so far the attitude of the United States, which exports its toxic waste to Third World countries, kisses off the Kyoto Treaty as something that it doesn't have to deal with, refuses to mandate cars that are at least 5% more energy-efficient (that alone would get us off foreign oil) is exemplary of the WORST UGLY AMERICANISM since the 1950s. The US plays games like letting Monsanto bullshit American about corn ethanol (Monsanto sells the seeds) when it costs more energy to produce it than you can possibly get out of it -- while Brazil is 60% off oil entirely by mandating cars that burn ethanol made of sugarcane BYPRODUCTS. Our solution is Prairie grass (switch grass) that must be grown every few years on the Plains to replenish the soil, which, BTW, corn destroys.

Meanwhile, on Cape Cod FATCAT KENNEDY (Teddy) refuses to allow Cape Wind to be built when Cape Cod has one of the highest cancer and asthma rates in the world, likely because its oil-burning plant (one of America's Filthy Five) is spewing particulate matter that's so deadly people there can't breathe despite the fact that it's blowing a gale down there all the time.

But likely Teddy will live to see the problem wash up on his doorstep, because Hyannis and Martha's Vineyard (which used to be connected to the mainland before sea levels rose) will be the first flooded.

Suggest you see everything that Iceberg wrote this morning and yesterday ... and also think about this for awhile:

That's YOUR air and YOUR river and YOUR ocean and YOUR land that polluters are fouling and they have it rigged that YOU have to pay to clean it up. So, they get tax breaks to build the plant, and then you get to pay for the product they make (including the cost of building the plant). Then you get to get sick off what they do to the air and the water. Then you get to pay for the EPA clean-up.

Perhaps you have a right to say that if they want to make a killing and pay their CEO $70 million a year YOU have a right to ask that they do it in a way that does not harm you, YOUR rivers, oceans, air and land, or leave YOU the bill to pay for superfund sites later.

And -- BONUS!!! -- we get off oil, and the little terrorist creeps with the poor indivition and problems with women don't get to spend YOUR wad on killing YOU.

Savvy?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 25, 2007 3:16 PM

Dear ICEBERG ...

Thanks for the links. I'll watch them all.

Cheers ...

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 25, 2007 3:30 PM

"> I’m still waiting.
And California will fall into the sea.
Tell me GW scaremongers, has China signed the Kyoto nonsense? No?
What are the results if mankind experiences another era like the Black Plague? Uh, we are only forcasting this particular doomsday scenario.
And guess what, shhhh, the Earth is moving closer to the Sun, as we speak! Oh and the Moon that effects climate here on Earth drastically, is moving away from the Earth. I got it, Startrek is the solution. A massive tractor beam to keep us away from the Sun and at the same time keep the Moon right where it is.

"> I’m still waiting.
And California will fall into the sea.
Tell me GW scaremongers, has China signed the Kyoto nonsense? No?
What are the results if mankind experiences another era like the Black Plague? Uh, we are only forcasting this particular doomsday scenario.
And guess what, shhhh, the Earth is moving closer to the Sun, as we speak! Oh and the Moon that effects climate here on Earth drastically, is moving away from the Earth. I got it, Startrek is the solution. A massive tractor beam to keep us away from the Sun and at the same time keep the Moon right where it is. I hope I got it right this time.

Please delete the other two posts, thank you.
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
And California will fall into the sea.
Tell me GW scaremongers, has China signed the Kyoto nonsense? No?
What are the results if mankind experiences another era like the Black Plague? Uh, we are only forcasting this particular doomsday scenario.
And guess what, shhhh, the Earth is moving closer to the Sun, as we speak! Oh and the Moon that effects climate here on Earth drastically, is moving away from the Earth. I got it, Startrek is the solution. A massive tractor beam to keep us away from the Sun and at the same time keep the Moon right where it is.

Posted by: tgusa at January 25, 2007 4:31 PM

On the theory that two wrongs actually do not make a right, the smartest thing the US could do about the rising Chinese and Indian demands for the world's dwindling supplies of light sweet crude is to sign Kyoto. Our signing it would force China, Mexico, Thailand, or Iran into position of "World's #1 Environmental Bastard", a position we currently occupy.

The WORST day in LA is better than the BEST day in Mexico City. In Tehran the air quality is so bad people wear surgical masks. In Bangkok it's so bad that people haven't seen the stars in two decades, at least not the ones my friends used to see there. And in Beijing the air quality has deteriorated to the point there are "oxygen bars."

There's no question we are held to higher standards than the rest of the world -- about everything. But that's no reason not to do what's sane and right. We should be LEADING this endeavor, not being in the position we are now of following countries like Japan and Brazil.

And, BTW, Agazziz's theory is that the Earth's orbit is not invariable, even beyond its known ellipticity. He conjectured that this was the reason for ice ages, and that the fluctuation was periodic. Agazziz died before current understanding of the periodicities of coronal mass ejections, but his work on orbital fluctuation may turn out to be true.

BTW, NASA apologized to Velikovsky about the temperature of Venus, and the people who are claiming that six billion people have NO impact on the weather will wind up apologizing,too.

And the problem that raises for the Republcans is that when the evidence stacks up as incontrovertible people are going to be SO ANGRY WITH THEM that Democrats will be in office for the next 25 yearse.

Which is why I am very perturbed about conservatives blowing this off all the time: I don't believe the Democrats get it about terrorism, so having them in office for a long time would be, in my way of thinking, a very dangerous proposition.

So I would like conservatives to get their minds out of certain dark places, get an education, and shape up.

These problems are interrelated and have the same solution.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 25, 2007 4:53 PM

I’m not blowing it off, I agree with what you say, only for different reasons. Air quality is my number one reason for the elimination of fossil fuels. In Southern Ca. during the 70s the air quality was horrible, it killed many elderly on hot summer days not to mention we all were sucking that filth up. You don’t see that anymore, why, we have become cleaner. One thing I am extremely disappointed in is the water quality in the Pacific, now that is something we could definitely have an impact on in a short time but no one speaks of it. Read the link I posted, understand the consequences of pushing too fast. The Titanic would still be here today if it had just slowed down. I still am not convinced that we won't as we do sometimes do, try to fix something and screw it up even worse in the process. The Earths orbit is an interesting theory, one I have contemplated for many years, so maybe the other Planets orbits change periodically as well affecting Earth? Billions of people, another problem is the massive amount of heat generating concrete under all those people. But we could go on and on about theories, my point is let’s deal with the greatest problem first, totalitarian maniacs. And maybe while we do the Earth will cool down, who knows?

Posted by: tgusa at January 25, 2007 5:27 PM

BUT TGUSA ...

The point I'm making is that we have three simultaneous problems:

(1) Islamist terrorism
(2) Environment
(3) A balance of payments deficit of $2 billion a day -- $1 billion of which is spent on foreign oil.

If we really buck up as a country and get off foreign oil, we:

(1) Clean up air, oceans, rivers and land pollution or significantly reduce it
(2) Lower the balance of payments problem by $1 billion a day
(3) ROB THE TERRORISTS OF THEIR PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF FINANCING - PETRODOLLARS
(4) ROB the people of one more excuse to make us wrong

That's why taking a strict environmental approach is the FASTEST way to solve all three problems. We will NOT shut down the terrorists until we take the money away from them. According to the last reports I have there are several principle forms of terrorist financing, in this order:

(1) OIL
(2) drugs
(3) tanzanite, gold
(4) under-the-radar financing in Pakistan
(5) scams

If we take out the one at the top of the list, we take half of it.

Getting off foreign oil is a MAGIC BULLET. We don't have time to do these things in "some order." We have to do them simultaneously, and, happily, doing them simultaneously has an EXPONENTIAL POSITIVE EFFECT FOR US.

So ... I think we're on the same page really, except that for me oil is at the top of the list because it's the fastest way to bankrupt them.

After all, my friend, the name of the game here is:

No bucks. No Buck Rogers.

C10 and mercury switches are expensive as hell.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 25, 2007 5:41 PM

Morgan Sinclair:

You seem to be somewhat confused about the difference between so-called green house gases like CO2 and "particulates". Particulates are small particles (soot) suspended in the air. CO2 is an invisible gas. The impact of particulates on GW is complex. In the air they keep sunlight out. On the ground on snow cover or glaciers they lower the albedo and absorb heat. To the extent that they lead to cloud formation it is even more complex in that clouds reflect the sun but water is also a "green house gas".

Anti-jihad and anti-CO2 emissions as goals overlap somewhat but they also conflict in at least two improtatnt areas:
1) Demographics. Environmental scare-mongering has been a major contributor to the mindset that has and is leading to sharply reduced birthrates in the developed (i.e. non-Muslim) world. When Paul Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb in the 70's the claim was that pollution was going to cause a new ice age. Now it's Global Warming. If we move to a net zero carbon footprint the Lester Brown's will conjure up another demon to explain why the suburban middle class has to go away. When non-Muslims stop having babies guess who doesn't?
2) Coal. The U.S. has an estimated 250 year supply of coal. Coal gasification can help to substitute for petroleum. Also where is all the electricity for electric car batteries going to come from? It is not a question of coal vs. corn vs. switchgrass vs. solar vs. ?. We need a lot of energy to replace petroleum and we need it fast. We need everything we can get. Eliminating 75% of Middle East oil in ten years won't get it done. We need to eliminate 75% of oil consumption by then.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at January 25, 2007 6:05 PM

MALTA ...

Thanks for clarifying the particulate matter and CO2 gas distinction. I clipped a bunch of stuff and left more out (I have massive notes) so I created a fairly truncated piece with a glaring error!

So, thank you.

And I agree with everything you said in that last post.

The head of GE research spoke at Harvard a few months ago, and what he outlined will NOT get us there. Also, people seem to have a totally provincial way of thinking about it, having lost all faith that cold fusion can deliver. Actually, I think if we don't get something like cold fusion or some form of "free energy" that is nonpolluting, we simply can't maintain at current population levels, even if they don't rise, which they will.

But there are some VERY cool things out there, particularly a rooftop wind machine that costs less than $20,000 and provides all the electricity for a home of four people. The angle of the roof is enough to provide enough updraft to get it started. It then rises OFF the roof so that it's soundles to the people inside. You then guy a $400 license to sell electricity and export the excess to the power company.

OF COURSE, the power companies aren't going to like this, and the Saudis do NOT want this to happen.

Anyhow, thanks again for your clarification. It was really sweet of you to do that.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 25, 2007 7:02 PM

havekoranwilltravel wrote: "Gee, its dry, hot and I'm hundgry. That's reason enough for me to kill."

Slightly off-topic, but this does make me wonder again at how the Ramadan practice of abstaining from drinking water for an entire day ever developed in a hot, dry, desert climate. Some have argued that it was a conservation practice; I think that's rot because after parching oneself almost into unconsciousness and/or psychosis (and a state in which one is incapable of working or maintaining normal human relations) for 12 or more hours one tends to spend the next 12 guzzling as much water as one can get ahold of, so nothing is conserved in the end. Come to think of it, people suffering from severe advanced dehydration do tend to behave in ways remarkably similar to jihadists - hallucinations, paranoia, raving, violence... What a f*****g idiotic tradition.

Posted by: angloirishslav at January 25, 2007 8:00 PM

This just in: Radical Muslims cause jihad!

Posted by: champ at January 25, 2007 8:31 PM

oh yeah, setting oil places on fire like we saw during the first and second war in Iraq is environment friendly and good for nature *ahum* it wouldn't surprise me if someone will come with the facts that the setting on fire of those oil places caused a big hit on the ozone layer.

second, hey muslims, ever heard about over population ? taking 10 kids each wife is not good for nature!

Posted by: Morghodius at January 25, 2007 10:09 PM

"reports I have there are several principle forms of terrorist financing, in this order:

(1) OIL
(2) drugs
(3) tanzanite, gold
(4) under-the-radar financing in Pakistan
(5) scams"

...You left out the hundreds of millions of dollars the The Western Governments actually give the Muslim terrorist groups actually called "foreign aid or assistance programs", Do not forget the hundred of billions of dollars worth of equipment given to them in the form of Fighter aircraft, small arms, ammunition, military training, surplus warships, anti aircraft batteries (and in the case of the French not only supplying these batteries, the French actually said they would shoot down Israeli planes) and food and clothing.....

Not the way to win a war.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 27, 2007 12:24 PM

So right you are, exsgtbrown ... So right you are.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 27, 2007 1:21 PM