Lake County Fiscal Rangers

Agenda 21 Update: Florida Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida to be Abolished

Tavares, FL - August 9, 2011 -  Recently we wrote about the dangers of the UN Agenda 21 socialistic philosophy being rolled out into local government, with land planning restrictions that reduced property rights, with "planning" methods to push people away from CHOICE in where they lived to government decided central people pods (or "Employment Centers" in Green Speak). I don't really know what is the right answer to "growth" but stealth marketing of extreme Agenda 21 objectives needs to be monitored.

I mentioned the existence of a Florida State Commission called the "Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida", and some of its objectives which reek of Agenda 21 objectives.    But, a recent Florida law will apparenty abolish the 15 member Commission and they defunded it for year 2010-2011.

Today I was reading an analysis of a new law passed by the current conservatives in the State legislature, HB 7201.   The Lake County Board will get a presentation NEXT Tuesday on this bill and how it affects the County Comp Plan.

Effect of the Bill
This bill repeals s. 163.3247, F.S., and abolishes the Century Commission on June 30, 2013.

You can go HERE to read three analysis of the bill.   If you want to read the details of the bill and learn about all the changes to reverse regulations passed by environmentalists in the past, you can do it there.   For instance, a lot of burdensome regulations were removed, the power of the State to delay local comp plan changes is reduced or their oversight is eliminated.  More "power" on local land use planning is given back to local Counties.  

Another example is that the bill " Removes industrial areas, hotels/motels, and theaters from the list of developments of regional impact. "

HERE is the offical Bill Summary for HB 7207.

Here is what one of the Analysis reports says about the Century Commission and it's planned abolishment by 2013:

Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida
Current Situation
The Century Commission was created in 2005 as a standing body charged with helping the state envision and plan for the future using a 25-year and a 50-year planning horizon.37 The Century Commission must submit an annual report containing specific recommendations for addressing growth management in the state. The report, which must be submitted to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, must also contain discussions regarding the need for intergovernmental cooperation and the balancing of environmental protection with future development, as well as recommendations regarding dedicated funding sources for sewer facilities, water supply and quality, transportation facilities, and educational infrastructure.
The Century Commission consists of 15 members representing local governments, school boards, developers, homebuilders, the business, agriculture, environmental communities and other appropriate stakeholders. The Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives each receive five appointments to the commission.
The commissioners serve without compensation, but, with the exception of FY 2010-1138 may receive reimbursement for per diem and travel expenses while in performance of their duties. Meetings of the commission are held at least three times a year in different regions of the state to collect public input and the DCA provides staff and other resources necessary for the Century Commission to accomplish its goals. The Century Commission was not funded for FY 2010-11. In recent years, the commission has operated primarily on private funding.

Effect of the Bill
This bill repeals s. 163.3247, F.S., and abolishes the Century Commission on June 30, 2013.

vj

 

UN's Agenda 21 is Taking over Florida Public Lands in Lake County & Other Actions

Updated July 28 to add section at bottom on Agenda 21 foreign aid projects on DEVEX website.

Tavares, FL - July 25, 2011 - The UN has an initiative called Agenda 21 which is really aimed at reducing property rights and increasing socialism around the world.

Agenda 21 has affected Florida as well as Lake County.  Keep on reading...

But first, if you don't know much about Agenda 21, WATCH this 9-minute "Agenda 21 Video for Dummies" explaining it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM&feature=youtu.be

This article link below clearly explains one part, which is the encouragement of "wildlife" corridors which then prohibit access by humans.   The article says now that 28% of Florida land is now taken up by such programs, and all of it funded with taxpayer money because no one challenged the concept.

Recently, last year, two environmentalists on the Lake County Board (now no longer on the Board) pushed through modifications to the Lake County "comp plan" which laid out land usage plans, so that property rights were taken aways from owners by tactics such as limiting the size of roads in their area, which then controls traffic, which then reduces the value of land that could have been used for housing.

However, at tomorrow's Lake County Board meeting, on the agenda are a number of reversals of those modifications to the comp plan because new Commissioners are more focused on property rights.

Agenda 21 is a way to reduce human footprints on land and increase government control over public lands.  As government controls more land, humans have fewer property rights and are pushed into central living sections.

Another objective, explained in the video above, is to REDUCE math literacy to reduce education levels because better educated people "consume more" which is not acceptable to Agenda 21 folks.

Read this article to understand it, especially about the government land purchases around the Ocala Forest, and then ask yourself why Lake County spent over $30-million to buy "public lands" but did nothing to make it accessible to the public until new Commissioners on the Lake County board pushed through adding parking spaces and trails in four of them.

http://www.floridapoliticalpress.com/2011/07/25/the-un-wildlands-project%E2%80%A6taking-over-america-starting-with-florida/ 

These type of actions  start in "planning departments" in government agencies and I am told several cities are implementing some Agenda 21 concepts as well.  One of the key tactics is to create regional "planning groups" which then take power away from local officials and push through changes with little public knowledge.   For instance, they regional groups push expensive government operated transit systems which are government subsidized (again, the government is the solution, rather than the free market) like trains, buses, etc. which focus on taking away public freedoms like driving cars where they want.

Do you doubt this?  Search on Google images on "agenda 21 logo" and see all the different logos from different countries.  Basically, the socialist countries that control the UN want to bring the US down to their level of government control over freedom.

Here is another article "The Horrors of Agenda 21 and ICLEI in Florida".  Read about ICLEI ( aka The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), which has a commitment to “sustainable development” throughout the world which in essence results in a private property land grab veiled in warm and fuzzy terms. ICLEI comes up with regulations and other ideas that restrict property owners from using their land."

http://polymontana.com/2011/03/23/the-horrors-of-agenda-21-and-iclei-in-florida/ 

HERE is the ICLEI website.  Notice they no longer provide a list of member cities and agencies, because activists have been using it to lobby for their local cities to drop out of ICLEI.  BUT, I found the hidden page listing all 1200+ ICLEi members including the United States, which is HERE.  I SCANNED the list and didn't find Lake County, Clermont, Mount Dora (surprise), Tavares, Leesburg or Eustis in the member list.  But, there is Collier County, Tallahassee, South Miami, South Daytona, Seminole County, Palm Beach County, Ormond Beach, North Miami, and a few others.

HERE is another article about ICLEI and what to do about it.

For Lake County, can anyone say Metropolitan Planning Organization, aka MPO??

vj

More:

THIS blog posting explains that Florida's Sarasota and Pinellas County's have canceled their membership in ICLEI due to all the complaints.

 Update July 28 -

After the Agenda 21 presentation at the REC recently, I went to the website of the largest international “foreign aid” forum and “development professionals” organization, called DEVEX.  It is for finding projects in “developing countries” like the anti-corruption work I did in Iraq and Afghanistan (but I got mine through the State Dept or DoD, not Devex).

DEVEX is used by the World Bank, UN, USAID (the US foreign aid office), DFID (UK foreign aid) to find “development” staff for foreign aid projects.

I searched on the “projects” category and keyword of “Agenda 21” (has to be in quotes or you just get any document with “21” in it).

I got 15 hits at this search page (I hope it opens for you, it is also a dues paid group and I have paid dues):

http://www.devex.com/en/projects/search?keywords=%22AGENDA+21%22&reset_base=1 

Notice the first item is “Developing Agenda 21… for Chad” which is funded by the French foreign aid office.

The next two, funded by the World Bank are in Beijing, and if you open the document, you see that the ADDRESS of the funding organization at the bottom of the document is the “Beijing Agenda 21 Office.”

However, at least only 15 hits existed – I was expecting many more.   But, if I searched on “sustainability” or other Agenda 21 buzzwords, I am sure I would find many more, including ones funded by USAID.

Forward this to anyone who might be interested about the UN Agenda 21's insiduous backdoor method to reduce property rights, liberty, etc in the US or the World.

vj

Other Agenda 21 references:

DELPHI Meeting Technique - Agenda 21 supporters use community "visioning" meetings to gain "consensus" on a direction such as land use plans or even school policies.  The method they use is the "Delphi" meeting facilitation method developed at the Rand Corp. which is a structured method to get people in public meetings to be led to agree with a pre-decided conclusion.  The original use was a process to get EXPERTS together and evolve consensus, but a watered down version is now used to lead public meetings to pre-decided conclusions.    HERE is a GOOD article describing how the Delphi technique is applied to exclude knowledge experts or mute their testimony.   In 2006, I attended some MPO "visioning" sessions in Lake County, FL used to gain consensus on a comprehensive plan for locating population and other centers.  That is exactly the method they used to gain public "consensus" and claim public support when there WAS NO VOTE, only statements that a "consensus was reached".  Some people call it a brainwashing technique.  It seems to have been taught to professional "planners" in government so they can get the SOME of the public to agree with what THEY believe should be done.

HERE is the official United Nations page on Agenda 21

Radio show on A21:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/usatalkradio/2011/06/15/what-is-agenda-21-very-important-for-all-americans 

 Here is a great overview of Agenda 21 published in the Canada Free Press:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39875  

Here is a YouTube video explaining the Federal Government's plan to take over farm lands flooded near the Missouri River.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffbTBglMLHo&feature=share 

Another great Agenda 21 warning video - regarding a sustainability plot in the San Francisco area:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH5KYGV8314  

Here is a webpage from the Spruce Creek Patirots in Volusia County about Agenda 21 and Smart Meters.

http://www.sprucecreekpatriots.com/United_Nations_Agenda_21.html 

    The page includes links to two videos on SmartMeters and their privacy & radiation issues

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8JNFr_j6kdI 

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj0ANyjdBnk    

Corn Ethanol in Gasoline - not all it is "cracked up" to be & harmful to environment

The ethanol industry received huge subsidies from taxpayers for producing ethanol that is mixed in automotive gasoline.  Former Governor Charlie Crist decreed that WE in central Florida had to have gasoline with ethanol, which is less fuel efficient, runs hotter engines, and damages many small two cycle engines (lawnmowers, etc.).    As a car buff, and antique boat buff, I will never forgive Crist for that.  Ethanol fuel will not run well in my 1974 Mercruiser outboard engine, so I have to travel about 10 miles to get fuel that does not have ethanol and bring it back in five gallon cans for my boat.

We have written about it's harmful effects before, but here is more:

vj

From Roger Segelken :

Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.

Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".

Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what Cornell University agricultural scientist, David Pimentel, calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.

At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell’s David Pimentel, one of the world’s leading experts in issues relating to energy and agriculture, takes a longer range view.

"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning", says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings are published in the September, 2001 issue of the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .

Among his findings are:   An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel’s analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.  The energy economics worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent get   ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way", Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU".                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels-not ethanol-are used to produce ethanol", Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price".                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol".                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace".                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile:The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. 

For further information, contact:  Roger Segelken 

Phone: 607-255-9736 

E-Mail: hrs2@cornell.edu

 

 

 

Lake County Commissioners Could Learn About Sustainability from this Example

Maybe the Lake County Commissioners can learn some leadership skills by studying lighthouse keepers and reviewing these examples of "sustainability", then implementing "sustainability" in local Lake County government programs.

Sustainability is a liberal buzzword used by the State Dept and other government and even local liberal groups to describe the process of ensuring that a desired outcome "sustains" itself and continues without much assistance.

The cartoon shows an extreme liberal's idea of sustainable personal transportation.  Don't use much materials for wheels, eliminate any gas powered system, without considering the extra human effort and time to get anywhere.  Humans come last.

One definition is that "sustainable societies are ones that meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Harvesting wood is sustainable if you plant more trees than you cut so the forest is always being replenished for future generations.

Sustainable fishing is to ensure the fishing stock is not depleted, and fishing is limited so that desired outcomes (fish populations) are replenished back to pre-human fishing levels.

Sustainable housing is that which is designed to be repairable and reduces uses of energy, etc. to limit need for increased resource construction such as energy plants, etc.

Sustainable living might mean growing your own food and not requiring distribution systems, etc. to get your food.  

As a result of this thinking, Liberals ( aka RINOS, or Republicans in Name Only) like Lake County Commissioners Linda Stewart and Elaine Renick would like to see you live in a rain barrel fifty stories high (to reduce the need for roads) and ...

A FiscalRangers.com Perspective on the BP Oil Spill

Point 1:  Never forget all oil drilling is to meet the oil demands of US and other country consumers and our demand pushes them to take risks to fill our demand for oil.

Point 2:  Never forget that "BP" is a BRITISH firm, not American, and they have a terrible drilling safety record, compared to other oil firms.  I will discuss that later.

Point 3:  Never forget that BP and other firms were drilling in risky, high depth locations because US Democrats, liberals and environmentalists refused to let them drill in safer, lower depth locations near shorelines like is done near Santa Barbara & Long Beach, California, and they have also reduced oil firm ability to drill onshore, which is even safer.   There have been hardly any ONSHORE drilling catastrophes, so it is much safer.

Background:

In the 1980's, I lived in Southern California and worked as one of 10 Internal Audit group Directors at ARCO (Atlantic Richfield), a very well managed oil company with a headquarters in Los Angeles, plus operations near New Orleans and the Alaskan Pipeline.  I traveled to an offshore oil rig near New Orleans, Coal operations in Denver, the Alaska pipeline in Alaska ( including two weeks in Prudhoe Bay), as well as a refinery in Oregon's coast.  I was in charge of audit quality control for all audits, and later moved to the Oil & Gas audit group before leaving for another position.  I audited refinery and other contracts, and one audit of a $400-million Alaskan pipeline supply contract resulted in finding so many management mistakes that ARCO did not renew the contract and wouldn't engage the firm again for at least 15 years.

ARCO was a VERY well managed firm.  The industry used their standards for measuring how much oil flowed through pipelines.  The industry group that owned the Alaska pipeline asked ARCO to MANAGE the entire project because of their management skills.  ARCO also was a leader in establishing methods to prevent damage to the environment, and had a whole group who focused on Alaska pipeline construction methods to prevent environmental damage.   When Congress passed an "excess profits" tax on the oil industry because oil, for the first time, was over $30/barrel,  I reviewed all the efforts they implemented trying to get definitions from Congress on what the law meant, and how to calculate the tax.   They couldn't get answers from the Federal agencies, so they set aside a reserve, which was later attacked by Congress for being insufficient.  Congress never mentioned that they never defined how to calculate the fines until several years later.

Thus, we were all proud to work at ARCO and they were an American company with high work standards and professionalism.

Unfortunately for ARCO, they were purchased by BP in 2000, thus I suspect many of their safety and other standards were dropped by BP.  BP apparently still uses the ARCO brand and their AM/PM stores in the West Coast.  In my opinion, things would be a lot different if ARCO had acquired BP, instead of BP acquiring ARCO.

BP - the company

BP is BRITISH.   I also worked separately after ARCO for a construction materials company that was owned by BRITISH firm for eight years.  The Brits were very class conscious, and the Brit CEO that was put in place for our American holding firm wouldn't even have lunch with the Americans.  The British have an entirely different way of doing business.  They don't have regulations we have in the US.  At the time I was at that firm, England did not have anti-trust regulations.  When we were having problems with a competitor selling below cost in Houston, the Brit CEO said why didn't we just get around a table with them, agree to split up the market and set prices at full margin.  He was so totally out of touch with US management practices and the fact that such "collusion" was a violation of anti-trust regs that we had to send him to a two day presentation by our law firm on US anti-trust and other restraint of trade regulations.

Later that same firm was caught up in hostile takeover battle between our UK parent company and another UK firm. BOTH of them made most of their money from diamond mines in South Africa, and invested funds into basic industries like aggregates, etc.    The US firm I was at was finally bought by an Australian firm, who didn't know the Brit firm that bought us fired the HQ, all the plant accountants, etc. to make the short term earnings look better to a purchaser who was from Australia.   It took them more than 3 years to recover and break even due to the administration and accounting systems being gutted by the Brit firm (known as a vulture investment firm).

Safety Record of BP

A recent TV new article showed that BP had a terrible US safety record, and over 700 safety incidents had been reported for them vs US and other firms that had UNDER 10 incidents.   In my opinion, their lack of safety practices indicates that the Brits DO NOT CARE about US safety and ethics, only profits.

Here is a quote regarding BP's safety record from Wikipedia (which may not be totally accurate):

BP was named by Mother Jones Magazine as one of the "ten worst corporations" in both 2001 and 2005 based on its environmental and human rights records.^[65][66] In 1991 BP was cited as the most polluting company in the US based on EPA toxic release data. BP has been charged with burning polluted gases at its Ohio refinery (for which it was fined $1.7 million), and in July 2000 BP paid a $10 million fine to the EPA for its management of its US refineries.^[67] According to PIRG research, between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills.^[68] 

And, here is a link to a UK newspaper article about BP's safety problems BEFORE the oil spill.  It talks about a letter from two US Congressman with the following quote:

In that letter, dated Jan. 14, 2010, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., noted that the company's efforts to cut costs could imperil safety at BP facilities.

And, HERE is a NY Times article on BP safety screwups, including huge refinery explosions, etc.

Go ahead, do a search on "BP oil safety record" and see more.

\My Perspective:

- The safety record of offshore drilling should not be attacked due to BP's practices - they are the problem, not the entire industry.   News reports have discussed that BP took more risks (ie to reduce costs) than other firms may have.

- British firms still consider foreign operations to be "colonists" to be made use of for profits, and little else.  I would not be surprised that they are much more cautious in techniques used in the UK versus other countries.

- British leaders mostly come from private schools that push a class ethic, thus they don't consider non-private school graduates as equals.   They pretty much sneer at the US education system.  Thus if they don't have respect for Americans, they won't be as careful in their work practices.  "Colonist" operations in non-UK countries are meant to generate profits, not goodwill.

- Clearly, BP probably dropped many of the ARCO safety practices, or did not continue them.  BP was always "British Petroleum" when they purchased ARCO, so they may have even fired or closed down entire ARCO departments and continued their existing, lower quality control standard practices.  The huge volume of safey incidents indicate that.

- I personally would boycott BP gas stations which are mostly in the Eastern US, and ARCO stations on the West Coast, but not be mad at other oil firms.  They have much better safety records.

- Remember that the leaking BP oil platform was operating in VERY deep water BECAUSE US Democrats and Environmentalists refused to let them drill onshore or near shores at more safe depths for drilling.  Thus the oil leak can also be considered to be the result of the US public still wanting oil, but suppliers had to drill in risky depths due to restrictions implemented by Democrats.   Drilling near shorelines at low depths and onshore are much less risky than where BP and competitors were forced to drill to meet US demand for oil.  

- Democrats and liberals continuously follow their "bible" on activist techniques from Saul Alinsky.  He says "never waste a good crisis" to use as the basis to get wanted regulations.  Beware of the Dems now trying to use this oil leak "crisis" to justify reduce oil drilling and running up more debt and taxes to subsidize "clean" energy like solar panels, etc which are not as economically feasible as oil.

Vance Jochim

Bali & Al Gore's Global Warming "Facts" Disputed by 400 Scientists

This blog is mostly about fiscal prudence by government agencies, but mis-representing facts is also an issue that needs attention. I don't like politicians or organizations that mis-represent facts to push an agenda.

Recently, there was a huge conference on global warming in Bali. And everyone has heard about Al Gore's saying Doomsday is coming and the world's icecaps will melt...

But, here is the other side - a Senate minority report that was just issued listing 400 scientists who disagree with those statements. And, the writer makes the point that Al Gore is now associated, and will make lots of money from the environment issue. He recently joined a major venture capital firm establishing investments in "green" companies, and Al said he wouldn't accept a salary. But, as disclosed in other articles, he did NOT turn down a share of all the profits that the partners in the venture firm, including himself, will make.

vj

==============================================

from Investor's Business Daily - posted at:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-21855031.htm

Global Con-sensus
December 21, 2007: 08:05 PM EST

Dec. 24, 2007 (Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex) --

Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.

In the wake of the Dec. 3-14 conference, where delegates worked to draft a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has released a report that lists scientists who challenge both Al Gore's assertion that the debate is over and the Bali conclusion that the planet is in imminent danger.

Many of the 400 scientists have taken part in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose climate change reports tout consensus but which critics charge are heavily edited to support pre-defined conclusions.

Among the IPCC's warming "deniers" is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting -- a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number -- entirely without merit," he said. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output."

Brosnahan says he has "not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case." Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.

Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn't even predict the past.

Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) , though she didn't name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.

This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric (NYSE:GE) , which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.

Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore's warming theories, but the U.N. "censored" them.

By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its "failure to act" on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe's output continued to grow. So who's failing to act?

Here an idea: How about NBC hosting 75 hours of debate between some of Inhofe's 400 scientists and any one of Gore's choosing, including himself? Afraid of some inconvenient truths, Al?

Newstex ID: IBD-0001-21855031

Originally published in the December 24, 2007 version of Investor's Business Daily.