Gas Price Predictions Haven’t Panned Out – Yet

A CNN Money article published yesterday included a prediction about gas prices made by John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil.  He said that Americans could be paying $5 per gallon of gasoline by 2012.  In response, this designer of “Will Work for Fuel” merchandise says, “Tell me something new.”

Since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, I’ve published several posts proffering predictions related to the prices of products provided by the petroleum sector (pardon the alliteration.)  Among them were the following 2009 posts:

  • On June 23, I posted a warning that Waxman-Markey Climate Change legislation would cause gas prices to reach $4 per gallon and “create huge disincentives for the production of America’s abundant natural gas resources, and force jobs and productive capacity overseas.”

The most-troublesome prediction, however, is one I shared March 3, 2010, in the post, Sobering Reality: $7 Per Gallon Gas.  It linked to The New York Times Dot Earth blog story about a prediction by Harvard researchers.  They said Americans may have to experience paying $7 per gallon for gasoline in order to meet the Obama Administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.  Ouch!

As one of the biggest advocates of a Drill, Baby, Drill policy, I’m pleased that such predictions have been made and thankful that they haven’t come true.  At the same time, I’m cautious, because the national average retail price of gasoline recently broken the $3 mark for the first time in a long time, according to GasBuddy.com (see chart above).  In other words, we’re not out of the woods yet.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you enjoy this blog and want to help keep stories like the one above coming, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support! Have a wonderful 2011!

Journalist Banned from Climate Change Conference

It appears that drug cartel-related kidnappings and murders are not the only crimes taking place in Mexico these days.  According to a message received this morning, Phelim McAleer has been denied press accreditation for the Cancun Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico.

Only days before the international conference opening today, the United Nations refused access to the veteran journalist and documentary filmmaker who produced and directed Not Evil Just Wrong (below), a documentary on Global Warming.

Apparently, climate scientists and politicians attending the conference are afraid McAleer might ask them to explain their global warming beliefs.  After all, he has done that before in conjunction with the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009 (See video #1 and video #2 below).

During an encounter in September 2009, an armed U.N. security guard prevented McAleer from asking a scientist difficult questions about the ClimateGate e-mails and warned that if he did not stop filming he would confiscate his equipment and expel him from the conference.  The video below, which was highlighted in a post Sept. 24, 2009, captured the moment that took place .

McAleer says the refusal to allow him access to the Cancun Climate Change Conference is censorship.

“I sent them exactly the same documentation that was acceptable for Copenhagen last year, but it seems they did not like my coverage of Copenhagen and are now trying to silence me and the people who have questions about this process.

“The message is clear:  ask U.N. scientists and politicians difficult questions and you will be banned from any U.N.-sponsored events. No difficult questions allowed,” he added.

FYI: McAleer is a 20-year veteran journalist who covered the Northern Ireland troubles. He has also worked for the U.K. Sunday Times and as a foreign correspondent for the Financial Times and The Economist. He has worked as a journalist and filmmaker in countries as diverse as Ireland, Romania, Uzbekistan , Indonesia, Madagascar, Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, and many other countries.

Senate Must Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since launching this blog almost four years ago, I’ve written and published several posts about a dangerous piece of legislation known as the Law of the Sea Treaty.  Today, I share the update below about the recent passage of the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act of 2009 by the U.S. House and the status of L.O.S.T.  Written by three patriots at the Boogai.net, this piece deserves your attention and needs to be shared:

By  Carmen Reynolds, Paul McKain and Karen Schoen

“It’s too late; it’ll just have to be stopped in the Senate,” Tom, the young male answering the phone in U.S. Rep. John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) Washington D.C., office, said about HR 3534 (CLEAR Act). This is the globalist bill designed to give away our land, oceans, adjacent land masses and Great Lakes to an international body and makes us pay $900 million per year until 2040.

HR 3534 is a thinly-disguised permanent roadblock to American energy which drives American companies out of the Gulf, delays future drilling, increases dependency on foreign oil, implements climate change legislation and youth education programs; but most important, it mandates membership in the Law of the Sea Treaty without the required two-thirds vote to ratify it in the U.S. Senate. Read more at LOST below

The House passed the CLEAR Act (HR 3534)  209-193, July 30, 2010. This bill was originally introduced July 8, 2009, but was resurrected by the recent Deep Water Horizon oil spill crisis.  According to www.govtrack.us, a debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the Senate, rather than on this particular bill. This bill was read for the second time Aug. 4, 2010, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 510.  No official Senate Bill number exists as of yet. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3534

Some have said this bill would be a long shot to be approved in the Senate or it will take a while to surface. Similar assessments were made about the health-care bill. Past precedent reflects how a 2,200+-page bill can be created, printed, members held hostage, and that same bill voted on within hours to facilitate holiday recess.

This bill assesses a Conservation Fee of $2 per barrel of oil and 20 cents per million BTUs of natural gas for all leases on Federal onshore and offshore lands (Section 802).  This will jettison America’s energy prices for oil and gas through the roof!  Click here to read the rest of this important story.

‘Solastalgia’ the Next Liberal Buzzword

Remember when the word, gravitas, entered the public conversation for the first time?  Well, stay tuned, because solastalgia is next.

A rarely-used 131-year-old word at the time, according to Merriam-Webster, gravitas was introduced en masse to the American vocabulary by members of the liberal media within 24 hours of President George W. Bush’s selection of Dick Cheney to be his vice presidential running mate in July 2000.  Almost always used with negative connotations, it was used to describe what “W” was said to lack in terms of experience and what he needed in a running mate.  Rush Limbaugh even devoted a segment of his radio show to the mainstream media’s “discovery” of the word.

Eight years after its introduction, gravitas was declared dead and, for almost two years, nothing had surfaced to take its place in the American vocabulary.  Then solastalgia arrived just in time for heated debate to begin on Capitol Hill about the so-called “Cap and Trade” legislation.

Solastalgia is a new word that appears in a recently-released report (see Sec. 1, page 38) from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health.  It’s defined as “place-based distress caused by the effects of climate change due to involuntary migration or the loss of connection to one’s home environment.”

Despite the fact that, according to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), climate change is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”, I predict members of the mainstream media will begin using it soon — and with fervor — as if it has existed since the beginning of time.

Despite the fact that Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary doesn’t even list the word, I predict it will become as mainstream as gravitas during the next few years.

Stay tuned for solastalgia.

Senators Introduce NEPA Certainty Act

Three U.S. senators just introduced new legislation concerning national environmental policy.  It’s designed, according to the description found on page one of the bill, “To prohibit the use of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to document, predict, or mitigate the climate effects of specific Federal actions.”

I found out about it via this news byte from Matt Dempsey, a staffer in the office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.):

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, along with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ranking Member on the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, introduced today the NEPA Certainty Act, with several cosponsors including Senators Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), James Risch (R- ID), Bob Bennett (R-UT), and Pat Roberts (R-KS).

The NEPA Certainty Act ensures that federal agencies implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) won’t engage, or be forced to engage, in costly, and ultimately useless, determinations about the global warming impacts of individual projects, such as highways and clean energy power plants.  It also helps reduce the flood of activist-inspired litigation designed to change NEPA into a global warming prevention statute.

As the Obama Administration admits, it is exceedingly difficult to assess the climate change impacts of individual federal actions, such as permitting new energy production.  Such assessments under NEPA would provide no meaningful information for the public; instead, they would encourage more litigation and seemingly endless bureaucratic delays.  These legal obstacles can block road construction, domestic energy production, and other similar economic activities.  As a result, Americans seeking work lose significant new job opportunities that could help alleviate the nation’s unemployment crisis.

Senator Inhofe: “The attempt to use NEPA to fight global warming won’t help achieve the purpose of NEPA. Requiring federal agencies to assess the global climate change impacts from building a road will only block construction of the road and the jobs and economic activity that go with it, with no discernible impact on global climate.  The NEPA Certainty Act will put a stop to this and give employers, including small businesses, greater certainty in their hiring and economic planning.”

Senator Barrasso: “This Administration has taken every opportunity to make life more complicated for Americans and their employers.  Having the Administration use NEPA to do the impossible task of determining how an individual project in America will impact global climate change is just the latest example.  We need to make it easier for businesses across our country to start new projects and create new jobs.  Our bill does this by blocking this new Washington intrusion.”

Senator Vitter: “As it stands, NEPA is subject to frequent abuse by radical environmentalists who want to use litigation to impose their agenda on federal agencies. Our bill seeks to prevent that abuse, which often hinders economic development by interfering with basic functions such as the permitting of new power plants.”

Seems like a good idea to combat those who want to use GLOBULL WARMING junk science to ruin life for the rest of us.

‘Fox Cleared of All Charges in Henhouse Scandal’

“The accused fox was cleared of all charges after none of the hens who had occupied the henhouse prior to the alleged incident appeared in court this morning to testify against the fox.  Reporting live from the criminal court building in London, this is Peter Johnson reporting for BBC News.”

Lord Ron Oxburgh

Of course, the paragraph above is fictitious; however, when you insert East Anglia University‘s Climate Research Unit in place of the fox and Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former chair of the House of Lords science and technology committee, in place of a criminal court judge, the findings of Lord Oxburgh’s review of the climate change e-mail scandal — as published in a Wall Street Journal article today — begins to lose credibility.

For starters, the man the Brits refer to as Lord Oxburgh is, by trade, a geologist.  Though not necessarily a disqualifier, since my dad was a petroleum geologist and a very smart one at that), being a geologist does not qualify one as an expert on climate.

More relevant to this case are Lord Oxburgh’s well-publicized views about climate change that call his objectivity into questions.

For instance, he told the press he sees “little hope for the world” unless carbon dioxide emissions are dealt with, according to a BBC article published in 2004.  In the same article, he opined that climate change makes him “very worried for the planet”.

Oh yes, you’re probably wondering who is represented by the hens in the opening paragraph.  That would be ordinary citizens of the United States — and, for that matter, the entire world.  You and I.

People who are made to pay the price each and every time foxes like those at East Anglia’s CRU use their positions — and government funding, I might add — to foist junk science conclusions into the public square and thereby provide politicians with the data upon which they base legislation that leads to ever-higher taxes.  All to save an environment that seems to have survived quite well for thousands of years despite us.

Talk about GLOBULL WARMING.  Sheesh!

Beef Cattle Industry Fighting Back Against EPA

The prices of everything from hamburgers to filet mignon are going to rise, thanks to the efforts of people at the Environmental Protection Agency who, it appears, didn’t receive the memo that global warming climate change had been proven to be a hoax at best and, more accurately, a crime against humanity.

In an effort to fend off the EPA’s misguided aggression, which surfaced recently when the agency reconsidered the so-called “Johnson Memo” interpreting when greenhouse gases become subject to the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit program, the folks at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Coalition for Responsible Regulation Inc. joined forces to file a Petition for Review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The final rule, announced March 29, marked the second step in EPA’s phased-in approach to GHG regulation.

Under EPA’s decision, facilities would be required to get PSD permits for GHG emissions starting in January 2011 when the first national rule controlling GHGs from cars takes effect.  In addition, facilities would be required to obtain the permits without EPA undertaking the deliberate rule-making process required by the Clean Air Act.

To read more about the effort, click here.

To show your disgust for this attack on the beef cattle industry, purchase CO2ws items like the ones shown above.

Hat tip:  RiteOn.org