MoveOn.org Wants $10 Per Gallon Gasoline

I couldn’t quite believe it when I had a friend of mine tell me that he really believed that $10 per gallon gasoline would be a good thing.  He actually wanted the U.S. to face a recession similar to the one that Japan faced in the 1990’s.  Apparently my friend’s sentiments weren’t all that unusual.

In this video, Barack Obama supporters at a MoveOn.org rally readily admit that they want gasoline to cost $10, $20, even $30 per gallon.  When asked how this would affect a single mom with a minivan, their response was, “she shouldn’t be driving a minivan”.

These are the types of people that will be in an Obama administration.  For those of you on the fence, keep this in mind!  Don’t think that the “progressive” agenda won’t amount to outrageous energy costs.

They just want you to sit there and sweat in your hot, dark house all in the name of global warming.

Advertisements

Offshore Drilling Ban to Expire October 1st

That’s right folks….if the Democrat led Congress doesn’t renew the ban. Think about it…we have $4 per gallon gasoline, billions of dollars per year going to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, a Democrat presidential candidate telling you to save gas by filling up your tires, and a Democrat congress that will actually renew a ban on drilling for our own resources. All I have to say is I better not hear a word from a liberal anywhere about us being dependent on foreign oil if they actually go through with this.

The saving light for this looming issue may be the Republicans. Republicans are actually threatening to shut down Capitol Hill to ensure that this ban does expire on October 1st. It may get hairy though…in order to do this Republicans would have to vote against a resolution to fund the federal government for the 2009 fiscal year. A similar tactic was done in 1995 when a Newt Gingrich led congress tried the same thing and it blew up in the Republican’s face. The public blamed Republicans for late Social Security checks and lost Medicare checks.

However, this time public opinion is in the Republican’s corner. The overwhelming majority of Americans support drilling for our own resources, so what is necessary is informing them of the Democrat led effort to renew the ban on offshore drilling. The Republicans have five weeks until Congress is back in session. Can they do it? It’s a tall task when the media is doing everything they can to elect Barack Obama along with every other Democrat in the country.

Spread the word and call your congressman to oppose this ban on drilling!

RINO Warner Proposes 55-mph Speed Limit

As a recent Virginia resident, I spent a year and a half thoroughly unimpressed with my elected Senators to the U.S. Senate. I became a Virginia resident just in time to vote for George Allen, who promptly lost to Jim Webb in the fall of 2006. One of my main disappointments with Senators Webb and Warner was that both were on board with the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill (aka Amnesty Bill).

However, my disappointment with the overall government and commonwealth of Virginia didn’t stop there. We had high state taxes and ridiculous speeding fines. While I was a resident, Virginia instituted a minimum $1500 fine (as much as $3500) for speeding 15 mph over the state instituted speed limit. You were only smacked with this fine if you were a Virginia resident. Out of state commuters speeding in Virginia didn’t face this same penalty.

Warner

Going along with the theme of an overreaching government, Senator John Warner is proposing a nationalized 55 mph speed limit for the nation’s interstates, the same speed limit that was in place from 1974 through 1995. Apparently Senator Warner thinks that the American people are too dumb to drive and pay for gas themselves.

This from the Associated Press:

An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.

Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country’s highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year

“Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America’s highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater,” Warner wrote Bodman.

Gas prices in this country are a made-to-order issue for the Republican party. If the Republicans, including John McCain, ran a campaign based on a platform of domestic drilling and exploration, they might stop a looming Democratic onslaught. All the polls show that a dramatic majority of American voters support more domestic drilling and exploration, including in areas such as ANWR and the outer-continental shelf.

The energy department responded to Senator Warner with the following:

Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said the department will review Warner’s letter but added, “If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production.”

BINGO! Forcibly decreasing usage of oil and gasoline will not cause the price of oil to drop. This same thing happened in the 1970’s and the price of gasoline went up. There were fuel shortages during the Arab oil embargo.

Democrats want to attempt to drop prices by curving demand. The only you curve demand is by ultimately stopping growth. If you stop growth in this country, you stagnate the economy. If we have a slowed economy, we have higher unemployment, more poverty, and more people depending on government for their welfare. Perhaps that is what the far left in this country wants.

We hear the phrase, “We can’t drill our way out of this.” Well, I’d like to throw out my own phrase: “We can’t conserve our way out of this.” Solar panels, mandated fluorescent light bulbs, and wind turbines aren’t going to drop the drop the price of a barrel of oil one penny. Only the principles of supply and demand will. Demand is already falling with $4 per gallon gas. The only way you get the price lower is increasing supply.

The most effective way to lower the price of oil is by flooding the market with more oil. This may take several years, but at least we’ll be on track to become less dependent on foreign oil. As of right now, we don’t have ANY tenable solution to this crisis from either Republicans or Democrats in congress. But as long as the Republicans have a guy like John Warner leading the charge for more government regulation as a solution to our problems, you can count on the Democrats having a strong majority in congress. Republicans don’t win by embracing liberal policies.

Weather Channel Founder Attacks Global Warming

John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, has been one of the loudest opponents of the concept of man-made global warming. He recently gave a very powerful speech before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in which he outlined the real motives of the global warming crowd–to wean the United States off fossil fuels at any means possible.

The full text of his speech is below. Warning: If you’re on the fence about man-made global warming, you may not be after reading this.

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

Obama’s Church Back At It Again

Barack Obama has already pronounced this sermon that went on at his church as disappointing. Strangely enough, 20 years of this didn’t cause him to bat an eye, yet all of a sudden whenever something controversial comes out at his church, he feels the need to separate himself from it. Kind of convenient timing, don’t you think?

Check out what the nice Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger had to say from the pulpit at Obama’s church this past week.

Barack Obama: Media Darling

If you follow politics closely, there is a distinct media bias in this country that is evidenced almost on a daily basis. In this current political season regarding Barack Obama, it is more observable than ever.

Never in my life have I witnessed one politician “misspeak” so many times in such a short period and have it utterly ignored my the main stream media. Most candidates are crucified for gaffes. Can you remember what happened with Dan Quayle spelled potatoe? Or when John Kerry said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it?

Obama Pakistan

Michelle Malkin compiled a list of gaffes made by Barack Obama in just the last year.

— Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

— Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

— Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you, Sioux City. … I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

— Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

— Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

— Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.

— Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste cleanup:

“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

— Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father”:

“Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

— And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave

People are going to eventually catch onto this. If he claims Arabic is spoken in Afghanistan or that there he’s been to 57 states during one of the debates with McCain, Obama will be in real trouble. The media won’t be able to hide that one anymore. Right now, he’s got the entire national media in his back pocket, so no one hears about the gaffes that he makes in Podunk City, Indiana.

The media and money machine that is Barack Obama will continue to roll through November unless:

1. The Republicans figure out a message (and a conservative one at that)

2. The public realizes out how clueless Obama is

3. Hillary figures out a way to steal the nomination. Don’t think it’s out of the question yet.

4. That “kill whitey” video of Michelle Obama surfaces (I’ve heard that one does exist)

I’m not too optimistic, but I’m hoping that at least #1 happens before 2012.

Bush Administration Falls for Polar Bear Gimmick

As originally reported on TownHall.com, the Bush administration took a page from Al Gore’s playbook and named the polar bear to the “threatened species” list because of anticipated losses of the polar bear due to global warming. Computer models show that loss of polar ice caps may degrade the polar bear population down to endangered species levels in approximately 45 years. So by adding the polar bear to the threatened species list, it might slow a population decline if global warming is true.

Of course, these computer models probably aren’t aware that all of the allegedly lost polar ice has now frozen back. Or maybe they didn’t hear any of the latest research that continues to debunk the entire man-made global warming myth. Perhaps the computer just forgot to take into account that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently reports that polar bear populations are on the rise. There are currently between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears, which is up from the low of 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Now of course, we should expect the environmental lobby and the EPA to accept any computer model that furthers their agenda of man-made global warming. However, we should not accept the Bush administration recognizing the same kind of computer generated models without asking the hard questions and challenging the “facts” laid out by the environmental lobby. For this, the Bush administration should be ashamed. They have largely given the opponents of legitimate domestic energy production (i.e. Progressives and Democrats) another reason not to explore for any oil or natural gas in the entire state of Alaska. Can’t you just hear Chuck Schumer arguing that drilling in Alaska will threaten the population of polar bears 45 years from now?

Maybe if conservatives and Republicans are lucky, domestic energy production will be at the forefront of the Presidential campaign this year. It’s funny that the main people you hear railing against the U.S. purchasing oil from the Middle East are Democrats, yet Democrats are the main opponents of domestic energy production.

As reported by Gateway Pundit:

Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?– Democrat

We are in very grave danger of being completely dependent on foreign oil because of the Democrats in Washington, and yet the general public blames the Republicans for America’s dependence on foreign oil. Despite the fact that oil is at $127 a barrel, Democrats continue to demonize American oil companies and impede their ability to search for new oil reserves or tap the known reserves that would bring down the global price of oil.

But now, thanks to the pandering by the Bush administration and liberal “environmental friendly” Republicans like John McCain, we might very well see Alaska added to the “No Drilling” zone as well. And all because a computer owned by someone in the environmental lobby told us that there might be fewer polar bears in 2053. Unless this pandering by some on the right stops, the Republicans are heading for a monumental and embarrassing defeat in November.