Let's Go Brandon's middle finger to America on the way out

Let's Go Brandon is only an environmentalists as far as it benefitted his pocketbook and/or power. He doesn't care about it, and clearly he doesn't care about America or average Americans. This is a middle finger to the entire country. Either that or some environmentalist(s) on his staff  did this in his stead because he can't even tell which we he's walking.

Energy independence? Screw it.  Affordable living? Screw it. Let's just make it as hard as possible for Trump to fix America.

Next environmental battle is insanely stupid

The waning global warming battle isn't over yet, but being on the verge of defeat spurs the next battle front for environmentalists.  Consider where the battles have been already - Malthusian crisis mentality, DDT banning, global cooling, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, the ozone, and then global warming, later known as climate change.  That's a lot of disparate ground being covered. Where it is ending up is no offshore drilling, no onshore drilling, no nuclear power development, no coal development and money flowing to the Middle East and soon Brazil for the oil the country needs but won't drill for itself - or even import from Canada.  Not to mention investment in big winners like Solyndra.

I have a question for environmentalists about Al Gore

Note: I don't want to seem like I'm piling on here, given his recent separation. That may in part explain away my question. But not entirely. Marital problems don't spring up overnight and Al Gore during the course of those personal issues (however long that may have been) has been in the public eye and working on other things. But not lately. Which leads me to my question.

I have questions for environmentalists about Obama

If you believe Obama is a green President, and the White House is directing BP, then why hasn't he ordered the explosive destruction of the well at the source?

As BP prepares to lower a four-story, 70-ton dome over the oil gusher under the Gulf of Mexico, the Russians — the world’s biggest oil producers — have some advice for their American counterparts: nuke it.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: “the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well’s channel.”

I'm not convinced the effort would require a nuclear detonation.  Something substantially smaller and localized could possibly do the trick.  I'm not even convinced it would necessarily work.  But it could stop the flow. It wouldn't take months - the US wouldn't have to wiat for BP either.  The federal government does have explosives.  But it would cost BP billions in lost revenue and alternate development costs. BP donated big to Obama's presidential campaign.

Al Gore, hot air for the planet

Following some bizarre rabbit hole on Twitter, I stumbled across Al Gore and then his blog. Listening to (or reading) this man is maddening. And I don't mean maddening in the way that losing your car keys is maddening -I mean he makes me think of something akin to shaken baby syndrome with him as the victim. [kidding, lighten up Francis]

How this guy has followers is not in question; long ago, Marxists figured out the virtues of propaganda, and he carries on in that tradition. Say a lie loud enough, say it long enough, and it will become truth to many people. The propaganda war is a one-sided battle in America. Conservatives rely on logic and reason to win over people. But in the face of vitriolic hyperbole it becomes harder and harder to win that way.

Here's an excerpt from his latest misguidance (he begins by quoting another Kool Aid drinker);

"For the next two decades or so, the climate will continue to change: Historic levels of built-up greenhouse gases will continue to warm the world -- and spin it toward new patterns of conflict. So we need to do more than simply reverse climate change. We need to understand and react to it -- ordinary people and governments alike -- in ways that avoid conflict. Over the next few years, we may find that climate-change accords and peace treaties start to overlap more and more. And we may find that global warming is heating new conflicts up to the boiling point."

Actually, in a book released last year, The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change, Professor Leon Fuerth addressed this very topic in a thorough and thoughtful way, as he has done for years. Leon was my National Security Adviser when I was VP, and is one of the most thoughtful analysts I have ever known. I recommend his analysis in this book. In addition the rest of the book is well worth reading.

Nice choice of advisers Al. Anyway, his laughable point is that global warming will devolve into conflict in many parts of the world - as if humanity's only response to anything is war - except for the enlighten liberals of the Western world of course. And more importantly, as if global warming were even factual. As if CO2 emissions were on some unsupportable level and speeding towards catastrophe. CO2 levels change. The total level of human impact is 0.7% of carbon dioxide, which is a fraction of the atmosphere to begin with. Stop worrying about the sky falling Al, when we've got a bigger problem with the moon moving further out of orbit every day. to the tune of 1.5 inches per year. You know the impact that will have on the tides during the lives of our grandchildren?

Focus Al, it's a much more important cause...