When Water Usage and Prices Are Controlled by Government

Living in Italy, Americans were shocked to learn that they couldn’t drive their cars in Verona on certain days if their licenses ended in odd numbers and on other days if their licenses ended in even numbers. Caught driving on the wrong day, the penalty was stiff. It was the bureaucrats’ way of dealing with pollution that affected air quality, soot deposits on marble statues, and buildings in town.  

In Modesto, California, the city deals with water shortages, whether real or imagined, by giving citations and fines to odd-numbered addresses that water lawns on Tuesdays when only even-numbered addresses can use sprinkler systems.

“We have two seasons of enforcement and so we entered the new season several weeks ago,” Modesto City spokesperson, Thomas Reeves said. “There are strict days; three days a week that you are allowed to water and it’s the same for a residential unit or a business.” https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/05/30/nurses-get-drenched-during-demonstration-hospital-warned-about-water-use/

As always, one-party state environmentalist California is ahead in curbing and controlling use of resources. It has enacted in 2018 Cal2022 water use controls they call “water-efficiency standards” in preparation for the manufactured global warming now turned into a profitable climate change industry. “The rules are aimed at water districts to cut per capita water usage.” This will eventually force individual customers into compliance.

By 2022, each person will be allowed to use 55 gallons per day and by 2030, 50 gallons per day. To put in better perspective, if you take an 8-minute shower, 17 gallons of water are used. A load of laundry uses 40 gallons, and a bathtub can hold 80 to 100 gallons of water.  

An old dishwasher uses 10 gallons of water per load. A new dishwasher with standards put in place in 2013 uses 5 gallons of water. An Energy Star certified dishwasher uses as little as 3 gallons of water per load. It is alleged that a full load of dishes washed by hand uses 27 gallons of water.

An older model top-loading washing machine uses 30-45 gallons of water, depending on the model. Front-loading and high efficiency washing machines use 15 gallons of water per load.

Sacramento Suburban Water District offers toilet rebates, complimentary showerheads, and complimentary faucets.  They are required to perform stress tests on their water leaks. A representative said, “Right now we lose up to 30 percent of urban water just to leaks in the system.” If a water district does not comply, the fines are $10,000 per day. https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/06/08/new-california-water-law-restrictions-shower-laundry/

Conservation of resources and natural habitats are a noble goal and we should try to conserve as much as we can. But micromanaging people’s lives does not work so well, it ends up in tyranny.

I can still vividly remember having to bathe by boiling a pot of water on the stove, going days and weeks without a bath, having to do without water altogether, especially in summer time when the communist government that controlled everything decided to clean the water tanks of rust and mineral deposits while we trekked to the water truck parked conveniently five blocks away to get a bucket of water at a time for drinking and cooking. The globalists who want to stop electricity use and other modern conveniences use in the third world today would have been pleased that we did not have dishwashers or washing machines.

And the United Nations declared its megatrend campaign for water for sustainable development (everything now must be sustainable this and sustainable that), one of the 17 goals of Agenda 21 now morphed into Agenda 2030 – water and sanitation for all. https://www.webuildvalue.com/en/megatrends/facing-the-problem-of-water-scarcity.html

We did protect the environment from pollution because nobody had cars except the elites, we just took buses and trains everywhere or walked. We did not have dishwashers or washing machines. Yet the environment was terribly polluted – the air, the soil, and the rivers. The commies did not care about spoiling the environment on an industrial scale.

As Dave Foreman of Earth First said, “We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.” What a primitive life that will be!

The government can certainly try to control consumption behavior by law and economically through price controls. It has done so and still does with various problems and consequences. Put in simple economic terms, when the quantity supplied is less than the quantity demanded, shortages result.

Governments can micromanage the use of a resource and restrict it through price controls. But government intervention into the free market by law can affect negatively many sectors and subsectors of the economy that need a lot of water to produce their output (paper, agriculture, orchards, vineyards, gardens, livestock) or service (hospitals, water parks, pools).

After 1971, when President Nixon decided to experiment with price controls, the economy experienced a plague of shortages - it seemed to be “running out of nearly everything.” When price controls ended in 1974, most of the shortages disappeared.

Price controls cause favoritism and corruption, enforceability problems, auxiliary restrictions, and limitations of volume of transactions.

When shortages or surpluses are created due to price controls, someone gets to buy or sell the limited quantity available. This can lead to discrimination along various lines, political favoritism, and corruption in government.

We had artificially low prices in the economy run by the Communist Party of Romania which resulted in long lines and favoritism of the communist elite class which was able to buy scarce commodities in their own special stores while the rest of us were on the Ceausescu diet.

Inevitably consumers must pay higher prices to suppliers. It is more insidious in industries where numerous suppliers exist. It is hard to monitor the behavior of so many sellers and their attempts to circumvent the law.

New laws may add auxiliary restrictions in order to enforce the original restrictions. So, the marketplace becomes more complex and more controlled by the legal system and suffocating government rules.

A classic example are the laws in New York City which ban conversion of rent-controlled apartments into condominiums. When rent-controlled apartments were enacted, the shortage of affordable apartments increased as landlords remodeled apartments into office space which allowed them to charge whatever rent the free market allowed instead of the low government controlled-rent on apartments.

Last, but not least, government intervention in the market, can lead to misallocation of resources. One example is the Russian farmers who used to feed their animals bread instead of unprocessed grains because price ceilings kept the price of bread very low. Why would they want bread to be so low priced? Because bread was a main staple in the Russian diet and kept them from going hungry on the rationed food in the stores.

It is true that the developed world contributes to the wasteful utilization of resources, including water. But do we need the daddy government micromanaging the behavior of everything we do?

Do elected bureaucrats have the right to protect a tiny fish, the delta smelt, to the detriment of millions of humans whose crops were devastated during a drought season while the government dumped fresh water into the ocean?

We could do better in conserving in many areas but showering with a bucket of water is not one of them. We could follow the late dictator Hugo Chavez’s advice to take 3-minute showers, but I am not so sure he followed his advice as he became rich beyond any socialist dictator’s dreams. His left his daughter billions when he died.

The Agricultural Resource Management Plan in Virginia

Coming soon to your state!

Martha's Liberty Farm Photo: Martha Boneta 2014

My late father-in-law was a successful farmer and cooperative extension agent with 40 year- experience who advised farmers in his county on crop management, land and water use, fertilizers, soil analysis, pests, and plant and animal disease.  He valued the land he owned and knew that it was very important to properly care for the soil, the water, and animals in such a way that it would not compromise the environment and the success of his farm in the future. His knowledge was based on his Master’s degree, research developed at nearby universities, and personal experience in farming for decades.

Virginia Cooperative Extension also offers an array of professional advice to farmers with their co-op extension agents who are knowledgeable and offer their expert advice. They include among many services: marketing, animal husbandry, crops and soils, environment and natural resources, finance, food, nutrition, health, lawn and garden, nursery, greenhouse, turf, specialty agriculture, and 4-H. http://www.ext.vt.edu/

It was thus very surprising when Governor Terry McAuliffe announced on August 25, 2014, a new Agriculture Resource Management Plan. This voluntary program “encourages farmers to increase their use of conservation best management practices while providing the community quantifiable credit for the practices they already have in place” and “better tracking the programs that farmers already have in place.” I am not sure what this quantifiable credit is going to do, but I do understand the word “tracking.”

The program, a partnership between “natural resource agencies and the agricultural community” will ensure that farmers will be “good stewards” of our “precious natural resources.”

Representatives present at the ARMP promotion were Virginia Farm Bureau, the Virginia Agribusiness Council, the Virginia Dairymen’s Association, the Virginia Cattlemen Association, the Virginia Poultry Federation, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

The Agricultural Resource Management Plan (ARMP) was actually approved in the 2011 General Assembly session to “advance water quality improvement” and to provide farmers an “opportunity for some regulatory assurance.”

ARMP “encourages farmers to have a private sector RMP developer create a plan for their farm or any portion of it. The plan will incorporate the property’s current stream buffer, soil conservation, nutrient management and stream exclusion practices and recommend other practices needed. Once the plan is approved and implemented, the property is deemed to be in compliance with state nutrient and sediment water quality standards. This certainty remains in place during the plan’s nine-year lifespan.” (Who is not eager to have their farm activity locked in environmental compliance for nine years and a private sector bureaucrat tell them how to run their farm?)

Delegate Steve Landes (R-Augusta) was pleased that ARMP was “approved with support from the agricultural and environmental community.”  

“Virginia is the nation’s fifth state, and the first in the Chesapeake Bay region, with an agricultural certainty program.”

Senator Emmett Hanger (R-Augusta County), pointing out the need  to credit farmers for their stewardship of Virginia’s natural resources said, “Protecting our farmers and our natural resources are one in the same.” Except when natural resources are protected, environmentalists tend to take the land out of production or place many strings attached to production, while farmers are interested in producing food on their land.

DCR is “accepting applications for certified resource management plan developers.” These bureaucratic developers, who are yet to be hired, will help famers “to apply for the development of a plan on their property.”  

Money via the Virginia Agricultural Cost Share program will fund “both the development and implementation of RMPs (Resource Management Plans) and the practices needed to complete one.”  Notice that the word “agricultural” has disappeared from the acronym RMPs.

Applicants are encouraged to contact their soil and water conservation districts or the DCR’s website under “Soil and Water.” www.dcr.virginia.gov

Why the duplication of services and the waste of money when Virginia already has expert advice for farmers via Cooperative Extension Offices and farmers already know how to protect their soil and water and how to be more efficient and profitable? Because it is about regulating farming, compliance with environmentalist demands, about control and tracking of the food supply, the water supply, and land use. It is another environmentally-driven encroachment of our lives.

 

 

Private-Public Water Partnership, UN Agenda 21

“Your failure to be informed does not make me a wacko.” – John Loeffler

Water is a precious and scarce commodity for some nations who are geographically located in areas prone to draught or with a predominant desert landscape. It is priceless in certain locales and so abundant in others that the marginal utility of an additional gallon of water is very low. When something is overabundant people tend to abuse it.

Water pollution affects industrialized, developing, and under-developed nations. We should not worry though, the United Nations has a plan for that; we are living in the “water for life decade 2005-2015.” Its website, “UN Water,” proclaimed at the January 8-10, 2013 conference, “Preparing for the 2013 International Year. Water Cooperation: Making it Happen!”

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/water_cooperation_2013/

How is this going to happen? It is called “water diplomacy,” forming private-public partnerships, “supporting all stakeholders, including those in governments, international organizations, private sector, civil society, and academia at an appropriate level while considering cultural aspects in different cooperation initiatives.” It sounds purposefully complex and confusing but it is just another arm of the United Nations’ ever encroaching agenda.

This conference proclaimed the World Water Week which was held September 1-6, 2013, during the “International Year of Water Cooperation” under the theme “Water Cooperation – Building Partnerships”. The event was an addition to the World Water Day, held on March 22, “to generate general attention on the importance of water and to advocate for the sustainable management of freshwater resources.”

The United Nations has been seriously involved in controlling water use policy in the 178 countries that have signed the 40 chapters of the UN Sustainable Development, June 3-14, 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, better known as UN Agenda 21.

Section II, chapter 17 (17.1-17.136) is dedicated to specific “protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources.”

Section II, chapter 18 (18.1-18.90) is dedicated to the sustainable development of water, “protection of the quality and supply of freshwater sources; application of integrated approaches to the development and use of water sources.”

The estimated cost of running just these two “programmes” annually runs into billions of dollars in taxpayer and non-governmental (NGOs) contributions.

Section 18.11 established that by the year 2000, all 178 signatory states of UN Agenda 21 should have efficient water-use programs in place to attain sustainable resource utilization patterns.

Section 18.12 (c) makes it clear how to do that – “develop interactive databases, forecasting models, economic planning models and methods for water management and planning, including environmental impact assessment methods.” The problem is that forecasting and modeling have been proven wrong in the case of manufactured “man-made global warming” that UN and all its affiliates have been peddling.

UN further suggests in 18.12 (g) the promotion of “schemes for rational water use through public awareness-raising, educational programmes and levying of water tariffs and other economic instruments.”

The UN report also recommended that water should be rationed for sustainable food production in agriculture. We know what happened in San Joaquin Valley, California, a few years ago when the fate of a tiny fish (the smelt) overrode the survival of thousands of acres of farms and orchards. Hundreds of farmers who had raised fruits and vegetables for generations were bankrupted when water for irrigation was withheld in spite of national protests.

Nicknamed “The Food Basket of the World” for its 12.8% contribution to the U.S. food production that comes from California, the eight county San Joaquin Valley has another unique problem. Because of environmental opposition to urban sprawl, the eight counties adopted another UN Agenda 21 pet project, the “regional blueprint planning process” that will result in denser high-rise developments and more public transportation. Would the land thus saved be designated for agriculture? Not necessarily because UN Agenda 21 proponents are fond of re-wilding.

Section 18.12 (n) endorses “the enhancement of the role of women in water resources planning and management.”

Section 18.39 (d) recommends that urban residents should have access to 40 liters of water per capita, per day, the equivalent of less than 10 gallons.

On September 13, 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack and Coca-Cola Americas President Steve Cahillane announced a “public-private partnership to restore and protect damaged watersheds on national lands.” This partnership between USDA, Coca-Cola Americas, the National Forest Foundation (NFF), and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), business, and community organizations (NGOs) is presented as a better way to “protect our nation’s watersheds and further enhance restoration efforts, even during challenging budget times.”  Federal dollars were matched two-to-one by Coca-Cola, NFF, and NFWF.

The claim is made that more than a billion liters of water will be returned to the National Forest System which provides drinking water to more than 60 million Americans. Coca-Cola claims that it supports more than 100 water projects in the U.S. in order to balance the water they use and to “ensure clean water supplies for communities.”

The private-public partnership claimed in 2012 to have restored natural resources and wildfire-damaged watersheds. Two examples were given:

-          “Stream channels impacted by severe wildfires are now rehabilitated and help provide clean water for the greater Denver area.” No description how that was accomplished.

-          “In California Sierra Nevada Mountains, water is returned to its natural flow through a meadow improving the watershed that supplies the East Bay area.” How was that accomplished?

Four more plans are in the works for the private-public partnership between USDA and Coca-Cola with all its interested stakeholders:

-          “Near Chicago, water will be restored to a wetland that had once been drained, replenishing the aquifer.” Will it involve confiscation of someone’s land, currently used for agricultural purposes?

-          “Invasive weeds on California’s Angeles National Forest will be removed, improving water supplies for residents of Los Angeles and forest wildfire.” I visited this particular National Forest and I saw nothing but brush and rocks. I actually photographed two trees on a stretch of miles. How will the weeds be removed?

-          “A New Mexico stream, altered by historic mining activity, will be redirected to its natural flow, improving water quality and groundwater storage.” Will this natural flow flood other people’s properties and/or arable land?

-          In the Lake Michigan watershed, a stream will be restored to its natural flow, reducing flooding, enhancing aquatic habitat, and improving water quality.”

I am a bit skeptical. The projects seem more habitat-related, protecting and improving the wildlife and its habitat. Furthermore, corporations are not known for environmental friendliness. They obey the EPA rules, pay fines when they don’t, and care for the bottom line of their shareholders.

Cahillane said, "Our experience combined with the knowledge and resources of USDA and other partners will exponentially increase efforts to create healthier, more sustainable communities for all Americans."

It sounded lofty, conscientious, and responsible, and I am certainly applauding any effort to clean our water supply. But then I became suspicious when I saw the words, sustainable communities for all Americans, right in line with UN Agenda 21 stated goals of controlling all forms of water supply, fishing, recreational activities on water, transportation and passage on water under the guise of sustainable everything.

http://usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2013/09/0180.xml

By 2020, Coca-Cola wants to replenish 100 percent of the water used in soft-drinks. It partnered with WaterAid, an international non-profit, to supply drinking water to Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso’s capital, in West Africa and in two rural communities in southern Ethiopia.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/09/16/coke-usda-partner-to-restore-watersheds/

Liberals drank the UN Agenda 21 Kool-Aid and are now in full mode forcing it down our throats in the name of saving us from ourselves.

 

Are We Too Late To Stop U.N. Agenda 21?

The global cabal of U.N. Agenda 21 is behind global warming, regionalism, zoning, land and water use control, wealth redistribution, weakening and eventual replacement of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, global warming, cap and trade, Smart Grid, Smart Meters, carbon taxes, high gasoline prices, global citizens, IB World Schools, Common Core nationalized education standards, biofuels, Marxist advancement across the globe, food control, water access control via the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), gun control, health control, the Arab Spring/Winter, unchecked illegal immigration, and they are unstoppable. They’ve had 100 years of preparation ahead of us. Their effort is bearing fruit on every facet of our lives and around the globe.

I am certainly not advocating surrender, freedom is worth fighting for, and we are the last bastion of freedom in America. If America goes, so does the rest of the world. Other nations want us to fight because they’ve given up.

I was told by a very conservative ladies’ group that we must be careful not to use the word Agenda 21 lest we are labeled “loons.” In other words, let’s self-censor and enable the Agenda 21 to march on unrestrained because we have to appear that we are trusty team players.

Having survived communism and seeing all the elements of global governance, I am not going to mince works. I have already been labeled “aggender” because I have ample research evidence that Agenda 21 exists, a “denier” because I do not believe in global warming, it is a manufactured crisis by the Club of Rome, IPCC, and other like-minded environmentalist-based groups and NGOs, based on verbal agreement called “consensus,” and faulty and manipulated data. I was called “islamophobe” because I gave a speech on Agenda 21 on the same stage that another person used when speaking about Sharia Law – that makes me guilty by proximity. I am a “racist” and “bigot” because I am definitely against amnesty and illegal immigration.

Nationally syndicated radio talk show hosts have finally started speaking about Agenda 21 elements – they describe seemingly unrelated components of it and thus ordinary people, who do not have the time to do research, have difficulty connecting the dots into the larger picture. I connected many of the stories in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-ebook/dp/B009WC6JXO/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1379601599&sr=1-1&keywords=un+agenda+21%3A+Environmental+piracy

Survivors of communism know and are speaking out. A political refuge from Romania appealed to the St. Lucie County Commissioners in Florida at a recent meeting about the U.N. environmental regionalist Seven50 plans for Florida. “I do not come here to lose my freedom; I beg you – get out of the Seven/50. Do not destroy our Freedom.” www.westernjournalism.com/author/suzanne-eovaldi/

Citizens vociferously opposed such regionalism. “I am opposed to Seven50… to the loss of our property rights by U.N. Agenda 21, the new world order communist Marxist project.” According to Suzanne Eovaldi, a long line of speakers and refugees from former communist countries pleaded with “local elected officials to reject the takeover of Florida’s private property.” One speaker wondered, “Why am I arguing for what has always been my right… for all that made America great.”

Large grants from HUD and the Obama administration divides the country into 11 nationwide regions, including the east coast of Florida. The Seven50 Regionalism Plan has already been adopted in the Gore triangle counties south of St. Lucie and Indian River counties. Vero Beach, IRC rejected the plan based on a “vertical authority flow chart” controlled by unelected federal bureaucrats influenced by globalist non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who plan to “stack-and-pack 200-foot dwelling spaces” and move citizens off their hard-earned private property. My family and I had experience with such social engineering and confiscation of property, forcibly being relocated off our land into tiny high rise apartments. Life in the 9-story concrete block apartments into which we were moved under protest and duress was very hard, especially since we did not have elevators to climb to our tiny cubicles. Sharing one bathroom and one kitchen with another family of four in a 600 square foot apartment was dehumanizing.

Suzanne Eovaldi describes the typical stack-and-pack living quarters in the 200 square foot aPodments building in Sammamish, Washington. Resident Judy Green “shares the kitchen with seven other tenants on the second floor.” To get to her loft cubicle, she must climb six flights of stairs in the absence of elevators. Cars are not allowed because of global warming. The micro-apartments are the size of a hotel room and rent for $600-900 per month.  The micro-housing units increase the population density of the area tremendously. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020845443_apodmentscitycouncilxml.html

The Seven50 is the Southeast Florida Regional Partnership of non-elected bureaucrats who have a “vision” for the rest of us, a vision driven by ICLEI and our own government to control land and water use, plants and animals, energy, construction, humans. Local control is gone and the funding comes from federal agencies doling out taxpayer dollars. In other words, we are losing our own sovereignty to the U.N. with our own taxpayer dollars.

The government knows best what “Best Practices” counties must adopt and these practices are not defined, they will be developed on a bureaucratic whim later. There will be changes to the counties’ desired low density character and scale. The bureaucrats will impose “sustainable development” and “equitable communities.” Smart Growth is certainly the linchpin of Agenda 21. The American Coalition 4 Property Rights explains on its website why the Seven50 Regional plan must be stopped with its Sustainable Urbanism, and the Smart Code solution to urban sprawl. Regionalism will fundamentally alter the make-up of our society and of our property rights or lack thereof. http://nomoreunelectedbureaucrats.com/

Rush Limbaugh explained in his September 12, 2013 monologue, “The Unintended Consequences of Liberal Social Engineering,” what “equitable communities” and Smart Growth are.

Limbaugh described the failed bussing social engineering project in the 1970s when kids were forcibly bussed around the country to schools outside of their neighborhoods, as far away as 45 minutes. Liberals used the power of government to force people where to send their kids to school because liberals did not like where Americans chose to live – they were too racist.

Rush Limbaugh said, “Social engineering is on the verge of being imposed on entire neighborhoods, adults and children alike.” The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will dismantle local zoning and force people to move into certain areas in order to achieve what they consider “racial, economic, and ethnic diversity.” This is “nationalizing neighborhoods” on a grand scale. This is done for our “own good and to achieve utopia.”

If local governments do not comply with the HUD mandate, their federal funding will be cut. HUD has already told Westchester County, New York, that “local governments will have to take meaningful action to further the goals identified. If they fail to comply, HUD can cut federal funding. HUD has told Westchester County that any limits on the size, type, height, and density of buildings are ‘restrictive practices.’”

By obliterating zoning regulations, Rush Limbaugh said, we will have neighborhoods by government quota. The elites, of course, will be excluded from this social engineering scheme.

The Obama administration and liberals in general are fascinated by mass transit, buses, subways, trains and do not like suburbia, they wish to dismantle it. Incidentally, Agenda 21 wants to do away with suburbia and move people off their land into high rise, highly dense settlements in large cities, accessed by public transportation, five minute walk from work, school, and play, with no access to cars and parking.

Mass transit limits our mobility yet our country’s freedom, development, and achievement was defined by our unbounded mobility. If the government controls mass transit, they will control the routes, they will control where we can and cannot go, hence the off-limits lands to human access, lands given back to wilderness.

Rush Limbaugh pointed out that “HUD’s power grab is based on the mistaken belief that zoning and discrimination are the same, zoning is disguised discrimination.”

Milennials, the products of years of liberal education, “do not wish to own cars.” They’ve been brainwashed by environmentalist teachers into believing that cars are bad for the environment, causing pollution and thus global warming.

Rush Limbaugh explained in his September 17, 2013 monologue, “Global Warming Scientists: We Were Wrong,” the connection of all the chess pieces in this global game based on a climate hoax. He correctly identifies IPCC as the “repository for the hoax” and how the “University of East Anglia in Britain… and this guy at Penn State with his fake hockey stick graph, these guys all reported to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). All of these models that they constructed over the years predicted calamity by now, and the calamity never happened.”

By 2005 we should have been destroyed by global warming. Oppenheimer said in 1985 that we had 20 years if we didn’t reduce greenhouse gases.  We are still here. All these environmentalists and the IPCC use the global warming excuse to “justify increasing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable energy.’”

Even though IPCC scientists admit that their “computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability,” it did not stop National Geographic from dedicating its entire September 2013 issue to global warming. A Statue of Liberty submerged half way into the ocean is superimposed by the large title in capital letters, “RISING SEAS, Mapping a World without Ice.”

Satellite photos of Arctic ice taken by NASA in August 26, 2012 and August 15, 2013 show a 60 percent increase in the polar ice sheet, even though environmental modelers warned us six years ago that the North Pole would have melted by now. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore had cited U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski in his December 2007 acceptance speech, “Earth has a fever,” that the North Pole would be “ice-free by 2013.” He was wrong by 920,000 square miles. The polar ice cap is the largest since 2006. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013#sthash.EQBSeKbY.RGnPeQoU.dpuf

Al Gore’s “planetary emergency and the threat to the survival of our civilization,” a.k.a. global warming hoax, has turned into billions of dollars lucrative schemes for many global warming alarmists.

The global warming crowd keeps crowing that we have the power to destroy the planet. Rush says, very wisely, “We don’t have any such power. We couldn’t do this if we wanted to.” Deniers like us are targeted for character assassination because we are interfering with the leftist effort to expand “the size and role of government” controlling the nanny state.

A wise caller explains that the models used to claim global warming utilize cloud cover as the biggest variable in determining what temperatures are going to be. Cloud cover is very unpredictable, clouds form and dissipate so quickly, and it can swing the models one way or the other. The computer models are also based on very large grids and inadequate to make the global warming predictions claimed.

When the data was fudged because it did not match existing models and the environmentalist agenda, a big scandal broke in Great Britain at the University of East Anglia. We are often denied access to documents, information, and data, we are supposed to trust these people because they are the only ones who can interpret the data, and we are too dumb to understand. We are not allowed to testify in Congress, and when we are, we are shouted down.

Rush Limbaugh said, “The political movement funds these people [global warming scientists] with donations if they produce the right outcome in their research. This movement converted a bunch of just every day, ordinary meteorologists into huge proselytizers for it.” All it takes is 105 degrees Fahrenheit in July and people are claiming global warming.

A local commercial ran for many years, featuring a very shady looking salesman who always ended his sales pitch with the words, “I wouldn’t lie to you!” That is how I see the manmade global warming claims manufactured by environmental alarmists whose interests of power and control are at stake. When we do diligent research and uncover the whole U.N. Agenda 21 cabal, we become right wing nut conspiracy theorists who wear tin foil hats to prevent Marxist progress from happening.