Google+ Followers

Monday, October 28, 2013

Global warming?… Chile hit with worst cold spell in 80 years.

Anyone looking to get some delicious Chilean fruit this winter is going to be disappointed, as the worst frost in more than 80 years has damaged 50 million boxes of fruit exports — causing the country to declare a state of emergency in its agricultural sector.
The Chilean Fresh Fruit Exporters Association said that freezing temperatures throughout mid-September hit the country’s fruit growers with the coldest frost since 1929. Temperatures fell to an average of 19 degrees Fahrenheit for an average of seven hours in several of the Chile’s growing regions, contributing to a huge drop-off in fruit exports.
Chilean growers exported about 282 million boxes of fruit last year, and experts believe that exports will fall short of that by about 50 million boxes for this year. However, when production increases are taken into account, the total frost damage to fruit production could be closer to 60 million or 65 million boxes.

The wine industry was hit hard by the frost as well.
Estimates put the total damage to Chilean crops at $1 billion. Reuters reports that between 35 percent and 61 percent of stone fruit crops were damaged, 57 percent of almonds, 48 percent of kiwis and 20 percent of grapes. The U.S. imports about 42 percent of the country’s grapes.
“These frosts are the worst that agriculture has faced in 84 years, impacting the area from Coquimbo to Bio Bio,” the National Agricultural Society said.
Because of the lost production, fruit prices are expected to rise.
“All throughout November, December and January, prices of peaches, nectarines and plums will be higher because there will be shortages,” said Cristián Allendes, president of the Federation Fruit Producers. ”There will be half the volume of a normal year, so it is impossible for them to cost the same.”

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared September 2013 to have tied with September 2003 as the fourth warmest on record. Global surface and oceanic temperatures were 1.15 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average for that month.
However, September also brought with it record levels of arctic sea-ice coverage — only six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave eliminate arctic sea ice by 2013.
Antarctica also experienced record levels of sea ice in September, with 7.51 million square miles surrounding the continent. This beat out the previous sea-ice coverage record, set in 2012.

Read more:

Friday, October 25, 2013

Global cooling or public apathy will eventually dry up IPCC funding and the organization will finally disband. New UN Climate Report Ignores Reality

There’s an old saying that when presenting a legal case, if the facts are on your side, “pound the facts,” but if the facts are against you, “pound the table.” The report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on September 27th is an obvious example of pounding the table.

The facts, which the IPCC’s report admits to, albeit with obvious reluctance and a good deal of obfuscation, show that humanity’s impact on global climate is too small to justify concern and is certainly no reason for the costly programsgovernments are imposing. Yet the IPCC persists in asserting the opposite. They state that they are more convinced than ever that global warming is caused mainly by our greenhouse gas emissionsand that the world face catastrophe if we don’t radically change our ways. Even though the IPCC’s past forecasts have been spectacularly wrong, the UN panel claims even higher confidence today—95%—that they’ve finally got it right.

They haven’t. The IPCC’s theatrics are clearly an attempt to misdirect public, media, and government attention away from the scientific fact that climate change is overwhelmingly due to natural forces. People are emitting more carbon dioxide (CO2) than ever, from power plantsautomobiles, and industrial activity, but the earth has not warmed for at least the past 15 years.

None of the computer models the IPCC references predicted this. The world was warmer in the 13th century than now, yet CO2 levels then were far lower than today. Global ice cover—a big concern of alarmists predicting rapid sea level rise—hasn’t changed significantly since satellitemeasurements began in 1979, and Antarctic ice, which is eight times greater than Arctic ice, is not receding. Sea level rise has remained at roughly the same gradual rate for the past few centuries, and is now only 1/10th that of 8,000 years ago when large quantities of ice were melting. Extreme weather across the world has generally declined. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that the U.S. is on pace for the fewest number of tornadoes in recorded history, while tropical cyclone activity (hurricanes in the North Atlantic) is

IPCC’s history of repeated and frequent mistakes

Given the IPCC’s history of repeated and frequent mistakes, it’s perfectly clear that they are a political organization, not a scientific one. Its primary purpose is to provide pseudo-scientific cover for a UN-led transfer of resources from people in wealthy countries to those in poor nations, while keeping poor nations from ever becoming rich. The IPCC should be disbanded and non-governmental scientists encouraged to publicize their conclusions without censor or intimidation from the UN, academia and other alarmists.

That’s not likely to happen soon, however. Too many people are profiting from global warming alarmism, as governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year attempting to overcome nature. Compliant scientists gain access to vast amounts of research funding if they characterize Western nations as the cause of every bad weather event. Instead of admitting that they made one of the biggest mistakes in history, governments continue to prop up the IPCC and pretend it’s findings are meaningful.

Global cooling or public apathy will eventually dry up IPCC funding and the organization will finally disband. For that to happen any time soon, however, will require that taxpayers in the nations that actually pay for the UN demand the end of the IPCC. And while they’re at it, voters would do well to call for an end to all the other costly, unnecessary government boondoggles adopted in the nameof global warming, such as expensive and environmentally harmful renewable power mandates.

Toward that end, the public and the press clearly need a reliable source of climate science information, one not controlled by the UN or any government. Fortunately, there is one—the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Several days before the IPCCreport was released, the NIPCC issued its current report, Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II), a book of more than a thousand pages citing nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific references and written or reviewed by some 50 climate scientists. The scientists firmly conclude nature, not man, controls the climate. It’s available at

With the release of the CCR-II report, we can only hope that the pounding you’ll soon be hearing are the nails going into the IPCC’s coffin.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Global Cooling versus Global Warming

It is well-established science that the cooling of the earth has been in the past and would be in the future more disruptive to human existence than atmospheric warming. If we are quite quiet, we may yet hear the sound of extreme irony laughing its head off at our efforts to lower carbon dioxide emissions and, thus, initiating or strengthening cooler weather conditions that would bring massive hunger and movements of populations, precisely the opposite condition wished for by the anthropogenic global warming crowd. However, no one may be able to spend their waking hours smirking if it turns out that inevitable global cooling could have been ameliorated by burning the fuel that we are using today that would have helped us to warm the planet and our sorrowful bodies tomorrow. We are so not prescient:
A study of fossil pollen particles in sediments extracted from the bottom of the Sea of Galilee has revealed evidence of a climate crisis that traumatized the Near East from the middle of the 13th to the late 12th century BCE, scientists say. The crisis brought about the collapse of the great empires of the Bronze Age.
The findings, by Dr. Dafna Langgut and Prof. Israel Finkelstein of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University and Prof. Thomas Litt of the Institute of Geology, Mineralogy and Paleontology at the University of Bonn, Germany, are based on new discoveries from underneath the Sea of Galilee (Kinneret Lake).
The researchers drilled through 300 meters of water in the heart of the Sea of Galilee and retrieved a core of sediments 20 meters long from the bottom of the lake. The goal was to extract from the sediments fossil pollen grains.
"Pollen is the most enduring organic material in nature," explains palynologist Dr. Dafna Langgut, who carried out the actual work of sampling. "...These particles tell us about the vegetation that grew in the vicinity of the lake in the past and therefore testify to the climatic conditions in the region."
The counting and the identification of the pollen grains revealed a period of severe droughts between ca. 1250 and 1100 BCE. A core of sediments from the western shore of the Dead Sea... provided similar results.
Professor Finkelstein noted that other researchers have also looked at pollen, but explained that this study has an "unprecedented" resolution of 40 years, compared to a norm of several hundred years.
The study is also the first to link pollen results to other historic records, particularly the destruction of Eastern Mediterranean cities, and reports of famine, in the same period. Langgut, Finkelstein and Litt propose that cold spells in the northern parts of the ancient Near East, coupled with low participation (sic. Should read 'precipitation'), led to reduced crop yield....

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Spain's Green Dreams Blow Up

Green dreamers in Spain once touted solar power as a cheap answer to their energy needs.  Then economic reality intervened: Spain's economy went from boom to bust -- and "green incentives" became too costly for the government (er, taxpayers).  As a consequence, Spain's cash-strapped government has drastically scaled back its generous "green" subsidies since the 2008 real-estate meltdown.
Now, green dreamers are getting more bad news: Spain's Parliament is expected, on January 1, to approve a levy on renewable-energy production intended for personal use, according to a Wall Street Journal article, "Spaniards Gird for Fee on Solar Power."  It's bad news for "a small but growing segment of the middle class: people who have joined a Europe-wide move toward self-sufficiency by installing solar panels in their homes and businesses," the article pointed out. 
Citing the case of Diego Nicolás, a 55-year-old auto mechanic, the Journal explains that he'd thought solar power would generate much of his own electricity and "lower his shop's energy bills enough to recoup the €42,000 ($57,000) investment within eight to 10 years."  Now, Nicolás says, he won't recover his initial expenditure for 16 years.
The green lobby is outraged.  But as the Journal explains, "Spanish officials say they are struggling to close a 'tariff deficit' -- the gap between the cost of running the country's electric system and the revenue it brings -- that has put a growing drain on public coffers as the economic downturn reduced electricity consumption."
Regarding the folly of solar power, the article explains:
Since Spain authorized self-production in late 2011, solar panels have been installed in as many as 5,000 homes and businesses across the country, people in the industry say. Some had been predicting that the estimated output, now less than 0.1% of the country's total, would grow tenfold by 2020.
The new levy puts those expectations in doubt. Households and businesses that stay connected to the grid for some of their electricity will also be charged a fee based on the power they generate for themselves. The fee is high, surpassing the wholesale price that Spain's electricity-market supervisor pays gas power plants for the electricity they generate.
The fine for an individual producer who fails to register or pay the fee is even higher -- up to €30 million, the equivalent to what a nuclear-power producer might pay for a radioactive leak that endangers public safety.
Spain's green dreamers, to be sure, had plenty of warning that something like this was coming.  Four years ago, the Journal published a prescient piece ("Spain's Solar-Power Collapse Dims Subsidy Model") that delved into the increasingly problematic aspects of Spain's quest for the widespread use of solar power.  The article explained:
Spain's hopes of becoming a world leader in solar power have collapsed since the Spanish government slammed the brakes on generous subsidies.
The sudden change has rippled across the global solar industry, in a warning of the problems that government-supported renewable-energy programs can encounter.
In 2008, Spain accounted for half the world's new solar-power installations in terms of wattage, thanks to government subsidies to promote clean energy. But late last year, as the global economic crisis worsened, the government dramatically scaled back those subsidies and capped the amount of subsidized solar power that could be installed.
Factories world-wide that had ramped up production of solar-power components found that demand for solar panels was plummeting, leaving a glut in supply and pushing prices down. Job cuts followed.
"The solar industry in 2009 has been undermined by [a] collapse in demand due to the decision by Spain," says Henning Wicht, a solar-power analyst at research group iSuppli.
Spain is providing important lessons for the U.S., where lawmakers are engaged in a debate about how to support renewable energy. Boosters of clean energy, including President Barack Obama, have pointed to Spain as a success story showing how government policies jump-started renewable energy, created new industries, and helped the environment.
There's nothing wrong with green dreams, of course -- so long as they make economic sense for the people (that is, the ordinary taxpayers) who have to fund them.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Monday, October 21, 2013

UK Paper: ‘Saving planet… will take man-on-the-moon commitment’ — But at least then we understood the physics!

Saving the planet from short-termism will take man-on-the-moon commitment Sound like Doctor Who: Victory of the Daleks - series 31, episode three "Danny Boy" was the call sign of a spitfire pilot who fought... ... of the Daleks made him the first person to write and appear in the 

The Guardian comments:
Instead of preaching to the choir the plan is to show how to achieve key economic objectives – growth, investment, secure public finances, fairer distribution of income – while at the same time protecting the planet. The pitch to finance ministers will be that tackling climate change will require plenty of upfront investment that will boost growth rather than harm it.
Will this approach work? Well, maybe. But it will require business to see the long-term benefits of greening the economy as well as the short-term costs, because that would lead to the burst of technological innovation needed to accelerate progress. And it will require the same sort of commitment it took to win a world war or put a man on the moon.

Revisiting IPCC Official’s “North Pole Melts after 50 million-year Freeze”; That’s Not his Only Problem.

James McCarthy, a senior IPCC official between 1997 and 2001, made a statement about Arctic ice melt in 2000 so erroneous that the New York Times needed to write a major retraction about its mention of it. Later in 2004, McCarthy was part of an ‘expert’ press briefing about “Global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity”. In Donna Laframboise’s 2011 blog, she tells how that press briefing is tied straight to the infamous resignation of Chris Landsea from the IPCC. As many know, the predictions for hurricanes haven’t worked out so well lately. More recently, we are told McCarthy was involved in the origins of the idea that skeptic climate scientists are ‘paid shills working for the fossil fuel industry’.
To recap the old NY Times incident: In an August 19, 2000 article with the title “Ages-Old Polar Icecap Is Melting, Scientists Find“, the paper said the following:
…for the time being, an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that has presumably never before been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate. The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.
“It was totally unexpected,” said Dr. James J. McCarthy….
This strange statement prompted skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer to submit a take-down to the Wall Street Journal, which was published nine days later. In his letter, Dr Singer succinctly pointed out how the kind of open ice McCarthy saw was nothing unusual, that after “a long summer of 24-hour days it is not unusual to find open leads all over the place, especially after strong winds break up the winter ice“. His letter was influential enough to cause the NY Times to append their article just one day later, with this note at the bottom:
Correction: August 29, 2000, Tuesday A front-page article on Aug. 19 and a brief report on Aug. 20 in The Week in Review about the sighting of open water at the North Pole misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there. A clear spot has probably opened at the pole before, scientists say, because about 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice in a typical summer. The reports also referred incompletely to the link between the open water and global warming. The lack of ice at the pole is not necessarily related to global warming.
Anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan reproduced the article at his web site with what may have been the article’s sub-headline at the top, “North Pole Melts after 50 million-year Freeze“, with no mention of the correction. And, Gelbspan’s ties with McCarthy and one other ‘science expert’ in the 2004 ‘outbreaks of intense hurricane activity’ press briefing, the late Paul Epstein, is significant.
For those unfamiliar with him, retired Boston Globe reporter/editor Ross Gelbspan began a second career with the 1997 publication of his “The Heat is On” book, which is widely credited as being a definitive exposé of how skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money. Gelbspan’s oft-repeated story of how he became involved in the global warming issue concerns a backlash he received after co-authoring a March 19,1995 Washington Post article with Epstein. As I point out in my own blog, Gelbspan’s particular narrative about becoming a temporary skeptic as a result of those backlash letters has its problems.
McCarthy’s association with Gelbspan raises far more questions. In his 2010 “Climate Cover-up” book, James Hoggan says the following about McCarthy and Gelbspan on page 3:
….he told me that when he had started looking into climate change, he actually thought the “science skeptics” had it right. He thought the science was truly stuck in uncertainty. Then Harvard oceanographer Dr. James McCarthy showed Ross how the deniers were twisting the data to mislead people, and he posed what for Ross became an important question: where were these purported skeptics getting their money? The answer to that question formed the backbone of The Heat Is On…
In that story, that’s all we see about McCarthy. But in a late 2011 interview Hoggan had with The Green Interview site, the story is more specific about Gelbspan’s situation back in the spring of 1995:
He had been running into climate scientists who thought it was a problem and other scientists who thought it wasn’t, and he was actually leaning in the direction of thinking that climate change maybe wasn’t as serious a problem as these climate scientists were saying it was. And one of his friends said, “I think you should check out this Fred Singer guy who’s telling you that climate change isn’t such a big problem and see who’s funding him.”
It is unlikely that Hoggan made a wild guess there, since he doesn’t just have a superficial association with Gelbspan. His web site was founded by Gelbspan (who says that only eight seconds into this audio interview), Hoggan credits Gelbspan as “a big part of the inspiration for starting the DeSmogBlog” (4th paragraph here), and Gelbspan frequently wrote therefrom January 2006 to November 2010.
Consider the whole picture: as a scientist having heavyweight Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change credentials, James McCarthy made very public pronouncements about Arctic ice conditions and hurricane intensity predictions that both fell apart, and now a prominent individual’s two separate recent descriptions apparently places McCarthy at the heart of the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie to the public – a nearly two decade-old accusationthat has yet to be proven true.
Was Dr Singer’s WSJ letter revenge against McCarthy? Hardly. Hoggan’s details about McCarthy’s association with Gelbspan are seen a decade after that event, and unless someone can find what I haven’t found, Gelbspan never referred to McCarthy as as someone who tipped him to look into the funding of skeptic scientists back in 1997-2000 (or anytime afterward, for that matter).
There is a far larger question to ask: why would a trained scientist like McCarthy give credibility to the notion of corrupt funding, if there was no proof at the outset that it leads directly to false climate science assessments from Fred Singer or any other skeptic scientist?
Is it because he feared the IPCC’s core science conclusions could not stand on their own merits against skeptic criticism, thus there was an immediate need to marginalize skeptics in the eyes of the public by any means possible?

Wayne LaPierre: Junk Science drives Obama and {Governor Jerry Brown} administration’s Gun Policies

Note: i add  {Governor Jerry Brown}

With the stroke of his royal pen, President Barack Obama declared that federal law in the form of a 17-year congressional funding ban on gun-control “research” at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was trumped by his personal decree through an executive order restoring the CDC’s junk-science agenda.
Were I to choose a single word to define this action, it would be “outlaw.” The law forbidding expenditures by CDC to promote gun control still stands. It cannot be erased by an executive order. But this is President Obama, his rule and his rules.
As with so many other Obama executive actions disregarding federal law or ignoring Congress or the courts, this one has born poisonous fruit in the form of a voluminous manifesto. In this case, it’s entitled, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearms-Related Violence.

Produced by the National Academy of Sciences (for the CDC), the research agenda was “supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the CDC Foundation, the California Endowment, the Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, one anonymous donor …”
Anonymous donor? New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or George Soros perhaps? After all, the deep-pocket largesse of the Joyce Foundation is the only reason the Violence Policy Center can keep its doors open.
To give you an idea of what is coming as a result of massive financial commingling of federal tax dollars, hidden billionaire donors and gun-ban foundations, let me give you a taste of the “Alice in Wonderland” world to come.
Under the heading, “Firearms-Related Violence as a Public Health Issue,” the report demands that “a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries. Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious. Recognizing this, the academic community has suggested that research examine violence much like is done for contagious diseases.”
How twisted is that? Gun ownership treated as a contagious disease

The central purpose of the proposed “research” should be intensely alarming for all Americans who believe in the Second Amendment.
The single most dangerous “research” among the CDC findings is a demand for collection of personal, private information on all law-abiding firearm owners and our guns. In the vision of the gun control researchers, such data would form the basis of the projected “science.” Throughout the document—no, it’s a manifesto—are references to the creation of this centralized database on the “scope and motivations for gun acquisition ownership and use and how they are distributed across subpopulations.” Subpopulations? Criminals, youth and “the general population.”
Of course, the only information that can be collected and centralized will be data on the law abiding. Criminals are, after all, in the shadows.
This notion of an all-invasive, all-seeing federal database is the core of every subset of research proposed. The agenda is spiked with similar references seeking “the exact number and distribution of guns currently in homes … 
Note is the head line i add {Governor Jerry Brown} 

Basic information about gun possession, acquisition, and storage is lacking. No single database captures the total number, locations, and types of firearms and firearms owners in the United States.”
“The exact number and distribution of guns and gun types in the United States are unknown, but for each of these populations, it would be valuable to have counts of total guns owned, their attributes [i.e., general type, caliber, firing mechanism], how the guns were acquired [i.e., purchased, received as a gift, traded for, stolen, etc.] and information on the sources of the guns [i.e., licensed gun dealers, friends or relatives, gun traffickers, owners of stolen guns, and so on].”
This is the worldview of gun ownership as a “public health” disease.
Want more proof of the direction of this illegal Obama effort?

Read more:

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Progressives and the U.N. are obsessed with water, among many other things, as a way to control what people do in their daily lives Rain, God’s Water Regulated by Progressives

The water you drink today has likely been around in one form or another since dinosaurs roamed and Earth, hundreds of millions of years ago.” – National Geographic

Water is life and it is recyclable, covering 70 percent of our planet; 2.5 percent is fresh water and “only 1 percent is easily accessible, the rest is trapped in glaciers and snowfields.”

National Geographic tries to make the case that freshwater is in a crisis since its levels have remained the same over millennia but the human population has exploded to seven billion. No mention is made of animals that also need drinking water.

Environmentalists have been tellingus for quite some time that man-made global warming would result in the melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, causing 25 feet rise in the ocean levels, destroying all the islands and coastal areas around the globe. But the moneyed liberals who spell this gloom and doom scenario have built elaborate mansions in coastal areas around the globe. And the polar ice caps have experienced this year a 60 percent increase in ice.

Humans seem to be “inefficient water users,” says National Geographic. One hamburger takes 630 gallons to produce while “water-intensive crops such as cotton are grown in arid regions.” In the U.S., cotton is grown in the south where water is plentiful.

The ever-wise United Nations guestimates that by 2025, “1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity, with two-thirds of the world’s population living in water-stressed regions as a result of use, growth, and climate change.” Non-existent global warming/climate change is the culprit even though the earth has been cooling for the last 15 years.

Rainwater has thus become a contentious issue which must be regulated by EPA say environmentalists and theirprogressive supporters around the country who make their life mission to control the rest of us because we are so ignorant, we must be told what to do in painful detail.  A wise judge in Virginia struck down the attempted rainwater regulation by the EPA.  However, it did not stop other states and local boards to proceed with implementation of its regulation.

Before 2009 “it was illegal in Colorado to gather rainwater and snowmelt that fell from a rooftop, patio, or driveway into barrels.” It was considered theft. In most of the western United States, it is still illegal to capture rainwater due to “the prior appropriation doctrine that governs water.” Colorado allowed capture after a study revealed that 97 percent of rainfall in the Denver area never reached the rivers, it evaporated.

The Colorado Senate Bill 09-080 was so strict that urbanites could never capture rainwater.  The rules were as follows:
  • Collecting rainwater had to be done only on residential property
  • The homeowner had to have a legal entitlement to a well
  • No water was provided by a city to the homeowner
  • Water could only be collected from the roof
  • The rainwater collected could only be used in the manner described in the well permit
I wonder how many people are in violation of the law when they leave an empty container outside and it fills up with rainwater?

Progressives and the U.N. are obsessed with water, among many other things, as a way to control what people do in their daily lives. Take for instance a golfing community in Texas that pumps water from the Brazos river running next to the golf course. After estimating the number of gallons of water needed to water their lawn, they paid the county for the water plus an additional amount in case they have underestimated their needs. After years of this business arrangement, the county wants to “renegotiate” the agreement because they feel that the course is not entitled to so much of “God’s water.”
Additionally, the residents cannot build cisterns to catch rainfall because “God’s water” would run on the property, seep into the ground, and run off into the river, thus polluting it.

As I described in my previous article, United Nations has a strong vested interest to control our water supply and our passage through the seas, oceans, our shipping, fishing, and mineral and oil exploration on the bottom of the ocean. They are controlling it through Agenda 21, chapters 17 and 18 signed by 178 countries, including the United States, and through the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which has not yet been ratified by the Senate for lack of sufficient votes. They will keep trying until they have the votes.
Executive Order 13603 from March 16, 2012 gives the Department of Defense authority over all water resources. The order also covers all food, transportation, energy, construction materials, “health resources,” farm equipment, fertilizers, and all fuels that can be commandeered and controlled by our government both in peacetime and during national emergencies.

Tombstone, Arizona, “the town too tough to die,” has been embroiled in expensive litigation with the USDA and the Forest Service over its ability to use water from the mountain springs that has provided the desert town with water since the 1880s, predating the Wilderness Act by 80 years.

A Monument Fire in 2011 destroyed the pipes in Huachuca Mountains that carried the water down from its source in the Miller Canyon Wilderness Area. Boulders the size of cars buried the pipes. The Forest Service denied residents the use of heavy machinery to unearth the pipes that were covered in some places by 12 feet of mud. Instead, they could only use wheelbarrows and hand tools. As they were protecting an endangered species, a pair of nesting Mexican spotted owls, the Forest Service declined to give further information unless the Goldwater Institute paid nearly $80,000 in fees.

Liberals do not have a problem with wind turbines chopping up millions of birds in flightaround the world, including the golden eagle in California, as long as it is done in the name of renewable energy. But disturbing a pair of nesting Mexican spotted owls, so that 1,600 humans can get water, is not acceptable. 

The 10th Amendment protects states and their subdivisions from federal regulations that impede their ability to fulfill essential health and safety functions. “Though the water may originate on National Forest lands, Bureau of Land Management lands, and other federally managed lands, the rights to that water belong to the farms and ranches and cities.” The lawyers for the federal government disagree.
In mid-June 2012, a group of citizens armed with shovels trekked 2 miles up the mountain in 100 degree heat to restore water by hand from the Gardner Spring to the historical Tombstone, Arizona.
Mr. Gosar made a one minute speech to the House of Representatives on December 12, 2012, “Our communities shouldn’t need their Congressman or a lawsuit to make basic repairs to infrastructure. The Federal Government should work with us, not against us, to preserve western water supplies.”

We now have to suffer the ill-effects of low flush “enviro-friendly” toilets that don’t really save any water since people have to flush them 4-5 times in order to get rid of human waste.

 To make matters worse, city sewers get stopped up because of low-flush toilets, costing them millions and millions of dollars a year to fix problems. The much touted flushable wipes also clog the small residential pipes and cost homeowners millions of dollars a year to dig out them out and replace. Yet there is plenty of water, save for cyclical periods of draught.

According to, there are over 15,000 desalination plants around the world that convert ocean water into drinking water either by distillation or reverse osmosis. Environmentalists complain that both processes use too much electricity. Distillation involves boiling the sea water, capturing the steam, separating it into cooling tanks, which then condense the steam into fresh water. Reverse osmosis is filtration that removes the salt and minerals from the water. The brine left behind is usually piped back into the ocean.

Mike Mickley wrote in “US Municipal Desalination Plants: Number, Types, Location, Sizes, and Concentrate Management Practices” that 324 plants were built since 1971 in the United States, capable of producing 25,000 gallons of fresh water per day. The Carlsbad desalination plant in San Diego, California is slated for completion in 2016 and will be capable of producing 50 million gallons of fresh water per day, providing 7 percent of the San Diego region’s supply needs.

Progressive don’t like desalination because it uses too much electricity provided by coal and other fossil fuels, the culprits of CO2 and global warming. They would prefer that we live in a feudal type society centered on a self-sufficient village.

But the global warming did not pan out because it is a hoax. South Dakota got a record 23 inches of snow in early October this year that killed 100,000 cows - they either suffocated or froze to death. The MSM, with the exception of Fox News and the foreign press, did not report the disaster caused by the massive blizzard preceded by heavy rain. Our government did not send any help because South Dakota is flush with revenue from tar sands. Besides, the evil conservatives caused the government to shut down, FEMA’s hands were tied.

Progressives don’t like hydroelectric power generation because it is interfering with nature, aquatic habitats, and the natural flow of rivers. Many dams have been blown up during this administration, citing this reason. The fact that nature itself causes rivers to flood, creating and destroying habitats at the same time, has escaped the progressive agenda.