Tuesday, August 18, 2009

"I wish I knew" by Jana Kolling

I’ve been watching the carbon sequestration issue unfold for months, and as it appears to be headed for a showdown perhaps it’s time to say what’s really going on. Few people are backing up the conversation far enough to explain the “why”, but instead are focusing on the “when, where and how.” To their credit, maybe it is counterproductive at this point to ask why, but until people understand what brought us here, nothing can be learned.

I attended the Lighthouse Christian Center meeting and was not only impressed by the huge turnout but by the level of informed professionalism of the organizers. And while I support their cause, I was appalled and offended by the condescending viewpoints of the environmentalists we were forced to listen to. Being lectured by the guy from Indiana about how much energy I waste and the female speaker describing American businesses as if they were intentionally raping and pillaging our country is not what I expected. Those two were not interested in Darke County’s problem, but rather came to advance a liberal agenda with the usual big-business pile-on straight from the far-left play book. Had I known these radicals were going to be there, I would have found something more productive to do with my evening.

The irony of this is that those very groups that helped cause this are now the same groups running around trying to stop it. The “why” in the carbon sequestration discussion is the presumption that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming. Liberals have been predicting their end-of-life-as-we-know-it message for roughly two decades now. Under the guise of “saving the planet,” they contend that carbon dioxide is heating the earth, and that man is the cause. They argue this as scientific fact, and largely blame corporate America for creating it. Once again, McDonald’s, Exxon and Wal-Mart are conspiring Armageddon and must be stopped.

Interestingly enough, just ten years prior many of these same alarmists were predicting an ice age, and you guessed it, man was causing that too. In 1971 Dr. Rasool of NASA told us that the fine dust we put into the air by burning fossil fuels would drop the average temperature by six degrees. In 1974, Time magazine said, “Telltale signs of global cooling are everywhere-from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.” Then in 1975, Newsweek concluded that, “The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” The article revealed a drop of half a degree in the average ground temperatures in the northern hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. Of course, there was no ice age, the media got it wrong, and a new message of catastrophic proportions was needed.

So in 1988, Newsweek, being a reliable source of information, announced that all scientists agreed about global warming. Al Gore, speaking at a Baptist convention, said, “The signal is on the mountain. The trumpet has blown. The ice is melting. The land is parched. The seas are rising. Why do we not judge what is right.” There’s big money to be made with this global warming stuff, and once again the elite media is more than willing to advance such a noble cause. Incidentally, when Gore left office he was worth between $1 and $2 million. By the end of 2007, his net worth was over $100 million; he had a multi-million dollar home in Nashville, a family home in Virginia, and a multi-million dollar condo in San Francisco. The utility bill for the 221,000 KW hours his Nashville home alone used in 2006 was $30,000. How’s that for an Inconvenient Truth?

Also ironic is how liberals, who have consistently accused conservatives of rejecting science, are doing just that. In 2008, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced that over 31,000 scientists had signed a petition rejecting the theory of human-caused global warming. So much for the consensus argument. And Phil Chapman of NASA wrote that the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, Christy group at the University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems in California reported a .7C temperature decrease in 2007. Additionally, the EPA recently repressed a study by Alan Carlin, a 35-year research analyst at the agency, that didn’t support the man-made theory of choice. They justified keeping it secret because Carlin was not a scientist. Carlin has a BS in physics, but they’d rather believe Al Gore.

Undeterred by science that disproves their theory, liberals use fear to advance their doomsday, anti-capitalism agenda. Dr. John Brignell, University of Southampton in Britain, composed a list of possible disasters we face from global warming. Among the hundreds listed were:

Acne, African conflict, anxiety treatment, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, beer shortage, birds confused, cannibalism, circumcision in decline, early marriages, earth slowing down, earth spinning faster, earth exploding, earth wobbling, earth upside down, fish sex change, ice sheet shrinkage, ice sheet growth, global cooling, earthquakes, floods, landslides, Loch Ness monster dead, NFL threatened, thunderstorms, sour grapes, smaller brains, tornados, witchcraft executions, world war, and world in flames.

These nuts have covered their bases. No matter what goes wrong, it is caused by global warming, which is man’s fault. But the fact is that temperatures have increased 1.2 degrees over the past 130 years, and liberals and moderates alike are using that to set policy. At its best global warming is still open for debate, and at its worst global warming is a lie.

But what’s scarier is that liberals not only have the media carrying their water but academia as well. Public schools are teaching kindergartners that we are killing polar bears and about to drown California, all the while churning out graduates who are reading at a fourth grade proficiency level. My own Alma Mater wove the message of “America is Evil” into its entire curriculum. Included in required materials was Erin Brachovich, social and economic justice, Palestinian peace keepers, and missionaries who had us define the meaning of progress, while hailing those in Africa who are perfectly happy to have nothing. It was not until my partner, a retired Ohio State Patrolman, spoke up in protest to their obvious slant that many of us realized what we were being fed. I would encourage anyone about to send their child off to college to thoroughly research whether the school is indoctrinating or educating its students.

Liberals regularly describe religious people as “unenlightened and unsophisticated.” But what we are witnessing is nothing less than a cult-like worship of Mother Earth. To them, man has no more right to her resources than a firefly. A fetus is of no more significance than a tree, and your aging grandmother is on par with an earthworm. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, all forms of life are equal. This ideology is what prompted the animal-rights movement, aimed at bankrupting farmers, and the Cap and Trade bill, aimed at bankrupting companies. These people reject the notion of spirituality, morality, or a living soul. Humans are subservient to the planet, and their destructive consumption must be stopped.

Darke Countians are finally feeling the result of a liberal agenda aimed at reeling in Corporate America and the perception that our country uses a disproportionate amount of available resources. By blaming man and his unyielding greed for more stuff, liberals have shamed us into feeling bad about everything from using toilet paper to flushing the toilet. And this might work, were it not for the hypocrisy of those delivering the message. Being told to drive little cars by people living in huge houses with boats, jets and big-screen TVs is like being scolded by a drug addict for taking an aspirin.

And so, we have local leaders in an awkward position. Some from the very party that promotes global warming must now represent their county’s distaste with having CO2 pumped into their chunk of Mother Earth. Nobody here can make sense of drilling this crap 3500 feet below the surface because it makes no sense. CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere, and that’s where it belongs. This speaks directly to the point of why in bureaucrats Washington should not make decisions that do not affect them. They’re too far away, and they don’t understand real people’s lives. Politicians are subsidizing this project and you can bet some are getting rich from it, as is always the case when government takes over more and more. And to be sure, if carbon sequestration were being proposed underneath Nancy Pelosi’s multi-million dollar mansion in San Francisco or her nearby vineyard worth over $5 million, we wouldn’t even be discussing it. So why do so many people still think that our elected officials care about our well-being and can provide for us everything we need? I wish I knew.

[re-printed with permission of the author]


  1. Liberals that are cult like that worship Mother Earth? Hmmmm.. At least "they" worship they can see, hear, smell and touch. Judging the Liberals for what they believe in. Wow. But if a liberal were to judge a conservative for what they believe, then they get deemed Socialist/Communist. anti-patriotic. And do tell, why is Erin Brokivich such a bad read? did she not do the right thing?

  2. tl;dr much.

    I agree that if i had gone i wouldn't have liked the extreme piling on of big business, etc.

    but one of the reasons i've stayed away is the religious aspect of it. I keep reading things where people say "I'm convinced god doesn't want that here" or something similiar. O RLY? Did he tell you? People are so quick to bring religion into a conversation that has nothing to do with religion. If it is a bad idea from a science/community/saftey perspective, then shout from the roof tops... but don't claim you're doing it in the name of your god.

  3. Thanks, Darke Journal for posting Jana's article.

    I find it deliciously ironic that the CO2 Leaders for the most part are our county Democrats ! Don't they know that their party's CAP AND TRADE legilation is the reason for trying to eliminate Carbon Dioxide? Incidently, CO2 helps make plants, crops and trees grow--- our farmers need it.

  4. Yes, Darke County Journal, Thanks for the article… I found it interesting and right on target... however in the comments, I do have a hard time understanding why someone is so afraid that God is recognized in our day to day lives, what’s up with that?

  5. no one is afraid god is being recognized. But why staple him onto a topic that has nothing to do with religion?

    does this mean that when I discuss whether or not to have steak for dinner, I could pull the card of, "god wants me to have it?"

    Does this apply to every debate? every topic? Why can't teh issue remain about the CO2 and its potentially unsafe/destructive qualities, not whether or not it is blessed by you god. That's all.

  6. Who cares if our local leaders party is for cap and trade? This country needs to get over parties, and titles. What happened to our INDEPENDENT thinking leadership in this country. Our leaders do their thinking with their wallets and the brains of their campaign contributors. I want my local leaders to do the right thing, thats it nothing more. I dont care if they worship an outhouse in the middle of a woods. I just dont care, I dont WANT to know.

    And as far as the God topic..

    I wonder if God gives his stamp of approval to children dying without health care? While we are building new infrastructure in a country where we are disliked by the majority. Seems God only gives his approval to Conservatives in the above mentioned letter. I guess the rich SHOULD be driving multiple $100k cars and have multiple million dollar homes, all while uninsured kids of hard working low income parents suffer. Seem like God would want that right?

  7. To Anonymous 2:58 PM:

    Yes, I know the Democratic Party, nationally, is behind cap and trade. So is another party called the Republicans. They would simply implement it differently. If you would just peek above your partisan glasses, you might realize that we are the last major country in the world to embrace this nonsense of demonizing CO2. Then, if you continue to look, maybe you will realize that this is simply about money, big money. And where there is big money, you will find eager politicians of both stripes; because donations from big money are their life-blood.
    Yes, we do know our party's stance on the issue, as well as the stance of yours too. What I find "deliciously ironic," like you,is the same observation; but for a much different reason. Something along the lines of representing your constituents, not a political ideology.

  8. Here we go with "the rich conservatives" don't care if children starve, die, etc. You idiot, where do you think the tax money comes from for Head Start, breakfast and lunch in school for children who 's parents can't afford it or would rather spend their money on beer and drugs?

    think about this: if the single mother of several children is getting food stamps, free clinic care, free housing and our tax payers work hard to bring up these children who become teenagers and turn around and have more single parent children who we can take care of. What happens when the "well runs dry"?

  9. @ 5:59 p.m.

    First, thumbs up for calling me a idiot. I bet you're ful of insight.

    Thank you for clarifying how government funded programs are paid for, you should be an econ prof.

    Who mentioned anything about beer, drugs, etc? I was speaking of hard working parents with sick children.

    Who mentioned single mother or single parent? Wow, I would think that Ann Coulter just posted @ 5:59 p.m., way to jump to conclusion!

    Seems to me that the well won't run dry pumping cash into countries where we are not even liked by the majority, so why would it run dry here?

    Talk to me wise one. See if I can comprehend what you have to say.

  10. Take from Jim Surber's post

    "If you would just peek above your partisan glasses, you might realize that we are the last major country in the world to embrace this nonsense of demonizing CO2."

    What do you mean by this?

    If you look at up coming and current CO2 initiatives from the European Union, they have had a version of cap and trade since 2005, there are more plans for automakers to reduce car emissions, among other plans including forms of CCS.

    Japan has a voluntary carbon market in place for about a year now.

    Australia has a proposal which should start carbon trading plan by next year.

    I do think a lot of it is to do with politics, but tell me what isn't? I know I don't have all the answers but it is pretty clear that it comes down a realist way of thinking, essentially, looking out for number one and making all things work to a benefit of sorts.

  11. Just my 2 cents about the discussion between poster 5:59 and 6:41...

    I can see the point made by the liberal poster as generally the conservative line is lesser taxation, which as was pointed out is the way these types of public service programs are funded, so I'm not really sure the point being made by the conservative poster there...

    There are a lot of people that misuse their money and do things such as go over board with alcohol and purchase drugs, in my eyes that is a problem that can only solved through education, as that will solve the problem in two ways. First it will educate on the negative effects of drug and alcohol abuse, secondly a more educated work force will bring higher paying jobs to the area. Highly educated thinkers will hopefully come up with ideas to solve our other problems but the more highly educated thinkers we have the better suited we are to work toward solving them... And while I don't have the information at my finger tips to prove, it can be assumed that a more affluent community has few problems with drugs and alcohol abuse...

    The other thought that comes to mind is that while a child may come from a family with less than desirable qualities, "it takes a village to raise a child" Our children will be the rulers of the world one day and we should do everything in our power to make every child's life better, as that is the only way to better the world.

  12. I find it ironic that so many people have objected to the latest gathering at Harmon Field that involved our local churches and implied that religion might save us from CO2 sequestering.

    In every election year since I can remember, our presidential candidates were somewhat judged by their religious beliefs, whether they attended church, and if so, what church, etc. etc. It was of great interest and importance to ascertain if our next President and leader had a Christian affiliation and the media went to great lengths to delve into the beliefs of any and all potential candidates.

    So, my question is, why is it so reprehensible that religion is brought to the forefront for the fight against CO2 sequestration? We seem to be Ok with it when it comes to vetting our political candidates...seems like a double standard to me.

  13. @940

    The religious beliefs of politicians during election season is done because the religious stance can determine the persons views on religious involved issues (abortion, marriage, etc).

    I don't think someone's religious affiliation is going to help determine where they stand on this issue. This is why it seems cheap and somewhat naive and dense to claim things such as "god wants us to fight this." To me, and this is a personal opinion, the person who leans on a phrase like that has little else in their mind other than doing/believing what their 'church' tells them to do/believe...

  14. Do any of you know what "cap and trade" means?
    First: if as a industry you emit more than the allotted CO2, you can "buy" credits from an industry that "under-emits". So, if an underacheiver wants to make money---lots of it---they find a way to dispose of large amounts of CO2. Result: just as much CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, the first error here is that CO2 causes global warming---nonsense. Global warming and cooling has been a natural cycle since time began. Second error is that warming is "bad", with an additional degree or two plus carbon dioxide crops, plants, trees should flourish.

  15. This article is nothing but inflammatory.

    Its core purpose was not to bring a message to light regarding CO2 sequestration, not to shine a light on an issue that might need to be changed, and certainly not to provide a potential SOLUTION to the issues and potential problems we have in this community and the country in general.

    The core purpose of this article was pure negativity. It lives to bash "liberals" and to promote anger. Period.

    It saddens me. The author is obviously intelligent and most likely has the inner capacity to bring some real thought and insight to our world today. Unfortunately it doesn't nothing but continue the "us vs them" mentality that has caused the majority of the problems we face in this country today.

    Instead she chose to spew venom and point fingers at other people's beliefs. There is no potential solution to our problems here... just a "Christian" calling other people "nuts" and spreading more of the bitter bile that divides human beings rather than unites them.

    I like this Journal.. it is a welcome addition to our community and a good place for healthy debate. But let me tell you - if the only thing you post are one-sided, conservative right-wing, liberal-bashing negativity pieces like this, I may walk away.

    Walk away, shaking my head... wondering what could POSSIBLY be at the seemingly unending root of negativity that seems to be pouring out of the conservatives in this town. Wondering WHY the fact that I choose to save energy rather than waste it pisses them off so much? Wondering WHY the fact that I want this planet - and this community - to survive unpolluted for my grandchildren causes them to SNARL... and most of all, I'll walk wondering WHY they always seem to be filled with so much hatred?


  16. To 8:10
    So, conservatives "spew venom" and should keep their mouths shut? I don't agree with the rush to judgement on CO2 but, am enjoying views of those that do. You see hatred, which tells me more about you than about the author, I see discourse, we're not sheep---thank goodness.

  17. To Anonymous,8/17,9:06 PM: You agree that we are the last major power to initiate carbon controls. The reason we are last is simply our possession of massive amounts of carbon in the form of coal. The economic (political) power of this resource is why the U.S., unlike the countries you cite, has never developed alternate energy sources. All politicians are responsible for us being "behind" in energy evolution. Hence, forget the partisanship, for all, including the citizenry, are culpable.

  18. i'll be honest. i'm new to the area and am interested in learning more about this topic in general.

    Who exactly has proposed this CO2 storage plan and where can i find information (factual, non biased information) about the proposal and what it really entails? From what i've been witness to, there isn't much debate on the topic. I don't know anyone who is 'for' this idea, and I would like to read their side.

    Thanks for any help.

  19. Back to Jim...

    I guess that is where I am confused... You say that reducing CO2 is nonsense, yet claim that if we didnt have large coal reserves we would have alternative energies in place... So that leads me to believe that the lobbists for the coal industy want deregulation of CO2 emissions, failing that, technologies such as CCS as that will enable them to continue to use coal fired power stations with out hefty carbon credits.

    There are a lot of people employeed by business which reley on coal, they will be very hard if carbon restrictions are passed AND we do not look in to things such as CCS...

    It is one thing to feel how you want about climate change, it may or may not be an issue, but what is an issue is more American's losing their jobs and raising engery costs, which will affect everyone...

    My personaly feeling is that like everything else there has to be a line that seperates a good thing from a bad thing, for instance having one or two beers on a friday evening with some friends can be a good thing, having 7 or 8 every night, will lead to all sorts of problem... I doubt very much any one has really looked into it without someone to please, but I am certain there has to be a optimal level of CO2 for our planet... Once we figure that out, we can work to find a way to balance our actions with optimal levels...

  20. Why has this turned in to abattle over religion shouldnt it be about the fact that the stillwater creek runs what a couple of miles from this site religion shouldnt have any thing to do with a disscusion about co2.

  21. Your worries over job loss and rising energy costs are justified. Just understand that we are where we are due to the longtime political influence of big coal, which contributed to and enhanced political and constituency opposition to nuclear power generation. That said, the sequestration proposal at this time has as much short and longterm safety assurance as the Manhattan Project of 64 years ago. Why did they test the first A-bomb in a remote desert?

  22. This discussion has become heated and well debated if not run into the ground with confusion in the last 22 comments so with great caution I add just a line here
    Cap and Trade - do you really know what ALL is in that bill? Do you know the stipulations put on home sales? Construction work? and other "green" projects? Do we plan to run our free market economy into the ground going "green". Well I for one don't plan to sit idly by while some great politician in the sky makes my life impossible to live in an attempt to save mother earth. If our country goes broke saving the planet what is the use? Take a good look at China - do you see that nation putting energy restriction on its growing businesses which means a growing economy which calculate to hard earned money for working families?

  23. Back to Jim...

    This has been my feeling since the start of this whole CCS thing... If we had put as much effort into encouraging viable options such as nuclear power, as people are putting into protests we wouldn't be in this situation, but just like CCS and health care reform people seem to have this deep seeded idea that it is going to kill us all...

    As far as the Manhattan project, parts of it were developed all over the nation. Testing it in the desert was an obvious choice as it was the first of its kind, and held unknown power, it also was the middle of a war. It would be fruitless to have tested in an area where enemy spies could have seen reported or learned about the project.

    CCS on the other hand as you mentioned is a short term answer, but unlike the first atom bomb it has been tried without problems. Like the Manhattan project CCS requires certain conditions. Trinity Flats was ideal for the atom bomb tests, just as it seems that if the tests are conclusive Mt. Simon is ideal for storing CO2...

    I think that if it will advance American science, to keep us at the forefront of international thinking it should be investigated... Now I know that you, and probably a few others that read this blog will jump all over me about how it is unsafe. Why will it be unsafe here but it is ok else where?

    To the poster at 9:25...

    I understand your point about China, but you do realize there is smog in their major cities day and night, 17% of deaths are related to respiratory diseases, 700 people die everyday from TB... This isnt just in the cites it is in the county side also...

    I don't about you, but I don't want the air that dirty even if it doesn't lead to global warming... We need to pick a point to hold air quality at, because it will eventually get worse and worse. If someone has garbage all over their yard, and you keep yours picked up, it still makes your neighborhood look bad. When the wind blows it carries trash into your yard making it look bad. We need to work together with our neighbors, not act as though two wrongs make a right...

  24. Back to Anonymous: I stated that sequestration had as much short and longterm safety ASSURANCE as the Manhattan Project. Now, as I write this, the fight is reportedly over, at least in Darke County. It has shown what can be accomplished by citizens unified behind a noble pursuit; that do not allow themselves to become fragmented by partisanship and personalities.

  25. Guess I irritated a few liberals. Words that stuck out were: Judging, bashing, hatred, inflammatory and anger. Typical from liberals because they are uncomfortable with morality: it involves judging. Judging hurts feelings. I presented facts and opinions they don't agree with so they consider it offensive. Remember the Miss California episode where the gay man said her comments "offended" gays? Guess what, had she been for gay marriage she would have offended the other side. This is the same philosophy that bore the brainchild of little leaguers not keeping score so as to not offend either team. Guess what happened? Nobody wanted to play baseball anymore.
    I disagree with many things, but I'm not personally "offended" by different opinions. Bravo to the person above who called this difference of opinion "discourse," he's right. For people who are easily offended I suggest you read romance novels, not politics.
    As for Erin Brochovich, of course she did the right thing. But for every evil company there are perhaps 10,000 others that are outstanding community citizens. Liberals also do this, take the exception and make it the rule.
    Point and case, the above claim of children dying with no insurance. Back that up with numbers and real examples, otherwise it means nothing. Has this happened ten or five hundred times, and where? Do you know of someone and what’s their name? Our poor have access to free healthcare. I’ll wait with baited breath for those details.
    Religion was in the article because of how it connects to the CO2 issue. The lack of religion ties directly into the liberal belief that man does not hold supreme domain over the earth. Human beings are equal to the earth, which does not wash with the bible. This has led to the extremist view of hiring lawyers to defend animals. Can’t condone eating cows when they are our peers. And as for the comment above, I never said I was a Christian in the article.
    Liberals routinely criticize religious people, but there sure aren’t any atheists in Washington are there? Attack a gay, you're a homophobe. Attack a woman, you're a sexist. Attack a black, you're a racist. Attack a Christian, and well that's alright. No hate-crimes law there yet or anytime soon.
    We are the cleanest country on earth, and the most charitable. We are our brothers’ keeper, but to hear liberals tell it we routinely stand by as poor people helplessly perish. Between extensive entitlements and donations that the rich pay for, our low-income citizens live a lifestyle that is extravagant compared to those in developing nations. Many that I know have cell phones and a satellite dish. Many also drive nicer cars than myself.
    And as for conservatives’ disregard for the planet, I don't waste anything, and I don't know anyone else who does. Been hanging wet clothes on hangers and drying them for ten minutes with a dryer sheet for 15 years just to save money. Do the above liberals do that?
    Jim, I read your articles on animal rights and global warming. We have more in common than otherwise, and I admire you posting your name.
    And finally, I think this is the greatest nation on earth, and I am proud of our accomplishments. (As a side note, know who contributed more than anyone else ever to Africa’s cause? George W. Bush. No fanfare, no photo-ops).
    I don't want radical change. Very few liberals make this statement, and very few of them are fond of our Constitution. Some of them hate this country worse than Al Quada does.
    I believe that this is why liberals are angrier than conservatives. We like the founding principles, and they hate them. We are comfortable with traditional living, and they want us to become Australia, France or Britain. That’s why I’m confident about our future. Free markets created our world-leader status, and the Constitution’s structure of government ensures that even the most radical leader cannot effect change easily or quickly.

  26. Well said Jana....excellent article and response!


Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */