Do you ever get the feeling that those who believe in Global Warming don't want to be confused by the facts?

I fully support a person's right to believe what they please. That doesn't mean their beliefs are correct, but they do have the right to believe what they want. We call that free will.

But when their beliefs start infringing on my rights, limit my choices, raise food and energy prices, and cripple our economy, then I draw the line. Yet that is exactly what is happening in our government and President Elect Obama is marching lock step to the global warming drummer.

If you were paying attention, October was a chilly month around the world. Yet the Global Warming devotees stated otherwise. The UK Telegraph gave a startling explanation in The world has never seen such freezing heat: (My emphasis)

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

How do you explain that discrepancy? GISS says last October was "the hottest October on record", yet NOAA reported 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest temps, and we observe much the same. Plus, aren't scientists supposed to observe and question? If the data says one thing, but world wide weather reports of early snows show something else, wouldn't that make you look closer at the data? Thankfully, some did.

... when expert readers of the two leading warming-skeptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

The GISS admitted that some data was "obtained from another body" and they didn't "have resources to exercise proper quality control" over that data!  Amazing. The GISS figures are used by the UN "to promote its case for global warming." They use GISS because "they consistently show higher temperatures than the others."

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

More and more data shows that brief period of warming in the 1990s has ended, yet Al Gore, the media, and some in government stubbornly hold to their religion of Global Warming.

[Is it] wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

Candidate Obama said he would look at off shore drilling and clean coal. President Elect Obama retreats to his earlier positions of bankrupting our coal fired power plants through Cap and Trade and reinstating the moratorium on offshore oil drilling. These two measures will further cripple an ailing US economy. And why? Because of a stubborn belief in the bad science of Global Warming.

 

 
What would Cap and Trade mean to us? America's Climate Security act "Catastrophic for Wisconsin"  and Cap-and-Trade? Maybe it should be called Cap-and-Raid! 

Across the pond, they have the same problem, Climate Change Bill makes chilling reading:

Declining global temperatures continue to make a mockery of those computer model projections on which the whole global warming scare is based.

As I have asked before, has there ever in history been such a collective flight from reality?

Film-makers taking on our 'global warming hysteria':

A new Irish film claims that climate change guru Al Gore is an alarmist and that those who think they are saving the planet are only hurting the poor.

IF THE ADVANCE publicity is anything to go by, Not Evil Just Wrong will do for Al Gore what Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did for George W Bush.

 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News

 

A picture is worth a 1,000 words. Click this National Climatic Data Center/ NOAA link to see a map United States. It shows U.S. temperature averages from January through October of this year.

The cruel joke is, now that temperatures are colder again, energy prices* are higher because of environmental protection measures! 

Another cruel joke: "State $5 billion in the red -- Governor to go to Beverly Hills"** by Rep. Jim Ott:

On the same day Governor Doyle announced that Wisconsin has a budget deficit in excess of $5 billion, the largest in state history, and talked about spending cuts, tax hikes and job cuts, he announced that he is flying to California next week for a summit on Global Warming. The summit will be held at the Beverly Hills Hilton.
... 

“Wisconsinites are facing the worst fiscal crisis in the state’s history and Governor Doyle is flying to Beverly Hills, CA “…to develop creative, collective actions to advance the global climate agreement….”that hasn’t even been negotiated yet???” asked Representative Jim Ott.

Rep. Ott added this point,

“Furthermore how does firing up your state plane – you don’t exactly have a history of flying commercial - reduce your carbon foot print? The least you could do is fly Midwest Express, support a Wisconsin company, and use some of the airline miles you must have accumulated on your September global warming trip to Germany.” 

Remember that Representative Jim Ott is also a Meteorologist--he knows his weather statistics!

Colder temperatures? State $5 billion in the hole? No matter, Gov. Doyle has his priorities. Too bad they aren't mine.
 

*We can't drill for new oil or natural gas sources, we can't build coal fired electricity plants, we can't build nuclear power plants, and we are forced to use expensive solar and wind, all because of environmental extremists. 

**I heard this on Mark Belling's show today. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News

 

Tuesday I got a tank full of gas for $2.69 a gallon. Sure wish gas prices were that low in August when we went to Yellowstone! Our trip cost us $549 in gasoline for 3,188 miles. If we made that trip now, we would have saved about $200. (Of course, Old Faithful Lodge is now closed for the winter season.)

The U.S dollar ended stronger than usual. One US dollar will now purchase $1.26 in Canada, .62 Pounds, and .78 Euros.  

Oil sunk to the $63 to $69 / barrel range this week. Less than half of what it was priced at its high. Since oil is priced in dollars, the stronger dollar makes the price/barrel go down. OPEC is likely to try tightening the supply in an effort to boost the price.

Wouldn't it be great if OPEC's decrease in production didn't matter?

The Congressional Democrats do not favor domestic drilling. Remember the Trojan Drilling Bill? Obama doesn't either. Republicans and McCain are in favor of drilling more offshore, utilizing oil shale, and "All of the above." Think about that when you hit the voting booth.

 

Post Script: Right on schedule, OPEC agrees sharp output cut  "An emergency OPEC meeting on Friday reached swift agreement to chop production by 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in an effort to halt a deep oil price slide." Well, oil priced in the $60s was nice while it lasted.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Jay Weber, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

 

Boy, that bailout bill really helped, didn't it? The Dow is now below 10,000 at the time of this writing. The rest of the world isn't faring much better.

But don't they say that every cloud has a silver lining, or it is an ill wind that blows no good?

Well, falling oil prices would be the little ray of sunshine in our black cloud of falling stocks.

Oil prices fall below $90 amid financial crisis worries: 

Oil prices briefly fell to an eight-month low below $90 a barrel Monday on speculation that the spreading financial crisis will exacerbate a global economic slowdown and cut demand for crude oil.

Significant gains by the U.S. dollar against the euro also contributed to slumping oil prices.

By midafternoon in Europe, light, sweet crude for November delivery was down $2.68 to $91.20 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier in the session, the price fell as low as $88.89 a barrel.

Oil prices have tumbled nearly 40% since peaking in July. The Nymex front-month contract last traded this low in early February.

At least lower oil prices will help Americans with heating costs* and filling their gas tanks. That is the only good thing I can say about the falling markets right now.

But, since we are so dependent on middle east oil, don't expect this downward trend to continue back to "good ole days" prices. After all, they do control the supply side of supply and demand. More from USAToday,

Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossien Nozari said Saturday that it would be "unsuitable" for both producers and consumers for oil to dip below $100 a barrel. He called on fellow OPEC members not to pump too much oil and avoid a drop in prices.

"OPEC has signaled it may defend $80," Shum said. "There's uncertainty over what OPEC may do."

Need another reason to drill domestically and adopt an "All of the Above"** energy policy? Our economy would not be in the mess it is right now if we had adopted it years ago.

*Most will not benefit this winter from falling oil prices when it comes to heating. JSOnline: Government warns of sharp increase in winter heating costs, especially for homes using oil 

**I do not favor all of the All of the Above. So far, solar, wind, and ethanol are just too expensive and inefficient to be practical. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Jay Weber, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna 

The Democrats present the Trojan Drilling Bill, the stock market is in major jitters, investors look for safe places to put their money. Hence oil, gold/silver/precious metals go up. Pretty simple.

With the Democrat's no-drill oil bill, prohibiting drilling in most areas, there will be little change in our domestic oil supply. If we don't get a real Drill Here bill, we will be dependent on foreign oil for years and paying higher prices. It is supply and demand...the price will go up.

Anyone wondering if the Democrats are trying to create such an oil price crisis that the government must come in and take that industry over too? I am hard pressed to explain the Democrat's stance any other way.

The other factor involved in precious metal and oil price increases is the fall of the dollar. It had been improving since about July. But the Freddie and Fannie / financials bail outs cause the United States to expand the money supply. That is inflationary, resulting in the value of the individual dollar to fall. Again, it is supply and demand.

From the Financial Times: The Short View: Oil and the Dollar: 

By late morning in New York on Monday, the price of oil had climbed by 20 per cent in barely five days and scarcely anyone had noticed. Then it went into overdrive, hitting $130 at one point before settling at $120.92. Last Tuesday, it traded at $90.51 – a swing of 44 per cent from bottom to top.

This had little to do with the supply of and demand for oil and everything to do with the fallout from the “Paulson plan” – the proposal to risk $700bn of US public money in a bail-out of toxic securities held by banks.

Oil rose as doubts surfaced about the plan.

When people are nervous, they look for tangible products to invest in. 

A key variable is the dollar. So far, it has fallen in response to the possible huge rise in the US deficit. The markets seem to have gone a step further and assumed that this step will be be inflationary and cause financial assets to lose value.

In that situation, the thing to do was to head for real assets, led by oil, although other commodities, led by silver, also had a strong day. Unfortunately for the Paulson plan, the inverse relationship between oil and the dollar is one of the few financial constants to have survived the past few days.

I heard this morning that oil settled down to about $108/barrel in Asia. People are nervous worldwide. The US money supply is expanded beyond thin.

The last thing we need is another check writing spree by the government in the form of a Democrat 2nd $50billion stimulus package or a $1,000 energy rebate based on a windfall profit tax to oil companies as Obama is touting. (That tax would be passed onto consumers, making oil prices higher.)

Even the Federal Government can only print so much money if it is to be worth more than the paper it is printed on! 

 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

 

 

 

Remember the story about the Trojan Horse? The Greeks gave a huge horse statue to Troy. The unsuspecting Trojans brought the gift into their city. During the night, the Greek warriors inside the horse came out and took the city. Hence the saying, Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. The gift ended up being the undoing of the citizens of Troy.

Well, I am saying, Beware of Dems bearing drilling bills. It is not what it seems, in fact, it is worse than doing nothing.

On the surface, it looks like the House Democrats are concerned with high energy prices in America. In reality, this bill does very little to increase domestic oil production. I think they are only concerned with reelection. 

Considering that 90% of the oil available exists within 50 miles of the shoreline, what will allowing drilling beyond 50 miles do for us? This bill essentially bans access to 100% of the oil on the west coast, including Alaska. It is all show and no go.

This is what happened in the House. From GrasstopsUSA:

On Monday evening at 9:45pm, Pelosi dropped a 245 page bill on Congress (H.R. 6899, the so-called "Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act.").

...she effectively stifled substantive debate, by-passed the committee process, prohibited amendments and forced a vote within 24 hours! 

And on Tuesday evening, the House of Representatives passed this "sham bill" on a mostly partisan vote of 239-189! And Pelosi's bill is NOTHING BUT SMOKE AND MIRRORS and will ACTUALLY PROHIBIT DOMESTIC DRILLING, RAISE YOUR TAXES, and has a 'mother-load' of Congressional pork!

OK, right there that should tell you something. Democrats have been against drilling all along and Republicans for it.

If the majority of Democrats voted for H.R. 6899 and the Republicans didn't, doesn't that tell you something? It isn't real! 

What does this worse-than-nothing H.R. 6899 bill include? (My emphasis)

The bill would allow states to “opt-in” to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf 50 to 100 miles off of their coast, as well as explore for oil shale on federal lands. The bill excludes the eastern Gulf of Mexico as well as Georges Bank, and does not include any revenue sharing provisions for States. States therefore have little incentive to “opt-in”. It also allows for lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), but does not include any provisions regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In addition, it would prohibit 48 companies from competing in future OCS oil and gas lease sales.

H.R. 6899 requires the sale of at least 20 billion barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve within sixty days of enactment. It imposes a new 15 percent renewable energy requirement on private utilities. The bill also includes several green housing initiatives for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and creates a new $2.5 billion Residential Energy Efficient Block Grant Program, as well as a $5 billion Alternative Energy Sources State Loan Fund.

H.R. 6899 extends current and creates new tax credits and other incentives with the stated goal of promoting energy efficiency and conservation. Many of the tax credits that are being extended by this bill are set to expire December 31, 2008. The bill includes $17.744 billion in tax increases on oil companies by denying them manufacturing deductions and limiting the ability of U.S. companies to utilize foreign tax credits with respect to foreign oil and gas extraction. [Tax increases will be passed onto  us.]  

The bill does not include lawsuit reform, nuclear energy, clean coal, or refinery provisions.

Guess the House Democrats did not listen to Obama's acceptance speech: "As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves [that involves drilling], invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

So much for wanting to end America's dependence on foreign oil.

House backs offshore drilling bill, Foes say plan does little to boost energy supplies:

Whatever the case, a similar energy bill faces long odds in the Senate this week - potentially leaving Congress without a major legislative accomplishment on an issue of top concern to voters.

...Rep. Paul Ryan, a Janesville Republican, accused the Democrats of trying to fool voters about where they stand on drilling: "It's very clear this is written in such a way to make it look like they're in favor of drilling."

The Senate will vote on their own versions. I am not hopeful. All we can do at this point is contact our dynamic duo senators and request that they vote against this drill-nothing version and the President veto this farce.

Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

President Bush  comments@whitehouse.gov.

It is pretty sad that the best we can hope for is that Congress will run out of time before they can each pass a do nothing drilling bill or for a President's veto pen. The Congress' greatest gift would be to do nothing and just let the moratorium expire. 

 

 

House Republican quotes regarding this bill:

Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner, "It would permanently lock up 80% of our nation's offshore energy resources--holding hostage billions of barrels of American oil."

Congressman Jeb Hensarling called it, "a hoax bill that would permanently prevent exploration of nearly 90% of the Outer Continental Shelf for American energy and block energy production in arctic Alaska and the Inter-Mountain West." 

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said, "I'm offended...And the American people should be offended that we're not doing the job for them that really matters." 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3 or 6:30-7:30pm

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Have you noticed that the mood of the country has changed regarding energy?

Last year, THE solution was all about growing our own energy by using ethanol. The emphasis was on reducing our carbon footprint and dependence on foreign oil, regardless of the cost.

But rising food prices and the fact that ethanol was a boondoggle (using as much energy as it supplied) caused ethanol's reign to slip from political popularity.

Then came Newt with his Drill Here.Drill Now.Pay Less. campaign. While I am surprised that he never did get those 3 million petition signers, he certainly started the conversation that we must start producing more oil domestically.

It was a conversation the President and House Republicans were willing to listen to. Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, however, were not. In fact, she shut down the House for 5 weeks!

During that 5 weeks off, around 130 House Republicans kept the heat on the discussion in the House. See YouTube

Also during the summer, the polls started showing that 67% of Americans favored domestic drilling.

John McCain responded to that fact by embracing offshore drilling. Certainly his picking Palin indicates he is looking at domestic oil and increasing natural gas. The Republican ticket has an "All of the above" approach. (Oil, clean coal, natural gas, tidal, hydro, hydrogen, geo-thermal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.)

Barack Obama wouldn't go that far, but did promote getting off foreign oil dependence by increasing clean coal, natural gas, and safe nuclear as additions to the usual wind, solar, etc.

But while all this new domestic energy posturing was going on, Pelosi and the House Democrats were not available until this week. On Monday:

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow.

So finally, she and the House Democrats are willing to allow a vote on drilling!

"Pelosi miscalculated in her heavy-handed tactics before the recess.  She attempted to push through her own plan under suspension of the rules, a tactic she decried in 2006, which kept Republicans from offering an alternative.  When it failed, she adjourned Congress, hoping to put off the debate until after the conventions … and her book tour.

"Instead of regrouping, the Democrats found themselves routed by an angry electorate and motivated Republicans.  The House Oil Party kept the issue in the media eye, at least to an extent, but high gas prices kept it on the minds of voters while Democrats took their summer vacation.  It was as poor a political calculation seen in recent years, and the sudden shift in generic Congressional ballots and in party identification has been the result.

"Pelosi and Harry Reid may have finally figured out that they could lose this election on energy policy.  Will this be enough to stanch the bleeding? (My emphasis)

This vote would have never happened without public pressure. We tend to forget that fact. But don't jump for joy just yet.

The next hurdle will be, what kind of energy bill gets passed? Will it be a real energy bill that truly increases drilling opportunities and new energy sources? Or will it be just all show and no go? as a token attempt by Democrat Congressmen and Senators up for reelection to appear sympathetic to energy prices?

But House Republicans called the Democrats' proposals "gimmicks," and instead have insisted on a stand-alone vote on oil drilling.

"Speaker Pelosi's so-called 'energy' bill will do nothing to help our energy crisis," said Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican. "It will multiply red tape and make it almost impossible to lower already skyrocketing oil costs." (My emphasis)

 

Stay tuned! 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

 

Have you noticed that this summer was cooler than usual? That fact, coupled with our recent cold and snowy winter, takes the subject of Global Warming off the front burner.

The last time the temperature didn't hit 90 degrees in Milwaukee during a summer* was in 2000, the weather service said. Before that, it was 1915.

But without even knowing what the daily highs were, could you tell our days and nights were cooler when compared to other summers? I could. Thanks to lower evening temperatures, we were able to avoid turning on our electricity guzzling air conditioner this summer.

As a gardener, I know this summer has been cooler. Tomatoes, which require warm evening temperatures, are ripening slowly. This spring my peach trees let me know we had a colder than usual winter by producing only 2 blossoms. Essentially all of the flowering buds were frozen out. I haven't had a bumper crop in years.

We may have had a stretch of warmer than usual temperatures in recent years. These fueled the Global Warming argument. Who could forget the summer of 1995? (We were remodeling. The whole east side of our house was open to the elements and mosquitoes. Couldn't run the air.) Remember that summer? We had a number of 100+ days! It was awful.

But the warming trend seems to have turned around, and I think it is taking the wind out of the Global Warming alarmists' sails.  

Did you notice how the Global Warming/Climate Change issue was no longer in the limelight at the Democrat convention? There was lots of talk about energy independence and getting off of foreign oil from the Democrats, but not much on reducing carbon footprints, or Global Warming specifically, that I heard.

Barack Obama did not mention Global Warming or even Climate Change in his speech. The closest Obama came to it was, (my emphasis)

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East...

...As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power**... ...And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

Al Gore referred to it as climate crisis in his convention speech. But Gore was not on the prime time coverage I viewed. He is still gung-ho on reducing dependence on big oil and coal, but even Gore did not refer to the term Global Warming--except in reference to McCain backing away from "mandatory caps on global warming pollution" legislation.

The Republicans are off to a slow start with their convention due to hurricane Gustav. Last night Joe Lieberman did mention global warming briefly:

If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never would have led the fight to fix our broken immigration system or to do something about global warming.

I will be listening tonight and tomorrow to the speeches--especially for specific mention or even a hint of Global Warming or Climate Change. I think the whole issue has cooled off in light of the large temperature drop this year and the majority of Americans wanting us to drill domestically. McCain's choosing Sarah Palin from an oil producing state leads me to believe we won't be hearing much about it.

 

*The article stated that for record keeping purposes, they count summer as being June, July, and August instead of the June 22 - Sept. 22 definition of summer. 

**Pretty ironic. The Democrats have been blocking these energy sources in Congress, but now that the American public is demanding domestic drilling, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear is OK?

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Last May I told you about Randy Melchert, candidate for the Wisconsin State Assembly--24th District.  Although that is not my district, his "Melchert Plan" to lower area gasoline prices by 10% is appealing. I don't have to live in the Menomonee Falls/Germantown area to be in favor of that! 

From his website:

...[His] three-part plan would eliminate the Minimum Markup Law, lower the state Gas Tax to the national average, and end the forced use of Reformulated Gas.While gas prices have risen nationwide, gas in Wisconsin has risen more than other states because Wisconsin has one of the ten highest gasoline tax rates in the nation! The Tax Foundation shows how gas taxes in Wisconsin are 3 cents higher than Indiana, 5 cents higher than Ohio, almost 11 cents higher than Minnesota and Iowa, almost 15 cents higher than South Carolina and Kentucky, and 19 cents higher than New Jersey

Now I could understand if the gas tax was used for highway maintenance and road repair, but when Governor Doyle can steal $240 million from the transportation fund to cover the rest of his budget, we're paying too much in gas taxes.

On his website, Melchert includes a series of interesting charts, graphs, and lots of statistics that illustrate how Wisconsin drivers pay more for gasoline than most other states. There is also a savings calculator where you can punch in your numbers to see how the minimum mark up, reformulation, and higher gas taxes affect you. On average, I probably would save $300 a year, but if I would calculate the savings for our entire household, we would be saving somewhere around $900 a year.

Since we just returned from a trip out west, I can confirm we found gas prices elsewhere much cheaper. The added bonus was that we could get non-ethanol gasoline in other states, giving us more miles per gallon.

For example: in a 2 day period on Aug. 16th and 17th, regular gasoline in Sioux Falls, SD was $3.49/gal, Willmar, MN was $3.62/gal, but in Wisconsin, reformulated gas (the only kind available) in Black River Falls was $3.79/gal. 

Check out the information on Melchert's website, and if you would like to save 10% on your gasoline bills, contact your representatives and senators and ask them to implement the Melchert Plan!

 

If I lived in the 24th District, I would be voting for Randy Melchert come Sept. 9th. But I live in the 14th District, so my vote happily goes to Leah Vukmir.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

 

According to Wednesday's USA TODAY Money section, the slight fall in gas prices has already influenced the type of car people are looking at.

It seems that now that the heat is off, rising gas prices wise, so is the interest in small cars.

The article, Hot ;small-car sales simmer down - Falling gas prices pull reins on stampeding buyers, stated that, "Car shoppers who panicked in June and July about gas prices are losing intrest in small cars and hybrids as fuel prices have declined."

This drop in interest was based on Edmunds.com users searching for certain types of cars--compacts and hybrids. A chart showed that although gas prices rose from $3.33/gal in April,  to a peak of about $4.10 in July, and have fallen to $3.81 now, the percentage of compact and hybrid searches is now just about where they were in April.

"In June, 31.4% of recent new car buyers surveyed said the purchase was motivated by a desire for better gas mileage, Acxiom says. That is up from 21.1% in February, but still less than a third of buyers. there is 'not this huge flood to one segmennt in the auto industry," says Tim Longnecer of Axiom's automotive practice. 'There's still going to be this hughe desire for utility.'" 

The article concluded with a quote from Jeremy Anwyl of Edmunds "At the end of the day, people need space."

We too toyed with the idea of trading in my PT Cruiser, which does not get great gas mileage, but concluded the cost to upgrade to a better gas mileage model was not worth it. We figured we could purchase a lot of gas, at a higher price, for the difference in sticker cost for that more efficient model.

The other influencing factor for us, just as Amwyl stated, was size. We needed a vehicle at least PT's size to use for a vacation car, so we did nothing. (Plus I still have 2 more years of warranty left.)

How about you?

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Wow! We don't need to drill in the US for more oil. All we have to do is properly inflate our tires*. At least that is what Obama said yesterday, Obama energy policy: 'Inflate your tires' Candidate claims oil savings would equal new production plans:

"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"

Vicki McKenna played the clip of him saying that 2 times on her radio show today. Unbelievable. Take a look at the Google search of Obama inflate tires too. Lots of entertainment there. UPDATE: Cindy Kilkenny has the Youtube posted of his comments--you can see it for yourself.

Obama's idea reminds me quite a bit of all the gas saving measures suggested and hawked during the Carter years of gasoline shortages. Each thing you did or purchased was to increase gas mileage 5 to 15%. People joked that if you did them all, you would have to stop the car every 200 miles just to empty the tank!

I will make sure my tires are properly inflated before I go on my next road trip later this year. Bet I only have to stop for gas once or twice! ;-)

Maybe one campaign strategy for Republicans would be to just arrange Obama speaking opportunities--no teleprompter allowed though.
 

*Just imagine how our economy would improve it we properly inflated our tires AND drilled here? 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

 GOPUSA's Send an email message to Congress about domestic drilling

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

We rekindled our love affair with road trip vacations in 2001 when our son was finally old enough to endure 3 days of driving at a time, and we were able to afford more dependable transportation. Instead of our usual 2 hour drive to some favorite State Park for 2 weeks of camping, we graduated to visiting various National Parks out west. It has been great.

Because of our road trip habit, I've payed attention to gas prices. Beginning in 2001, when prices spiked in late spring, I would wring my hands with everyone else and worry how high they would go by August (the time of our departure.) But it seemed every year, gas prices went down about 40 - 50 cents/gal by the time we hit the road. (Good reason to plan your driving vacation late in the summer.) Photo shows $3.79/gal on July 25, 2008 at Speedway on Greenfield and Sunny Slope Road, that is about .50 cents lower than earlier highs this summer. 

Experience taught me to not fret too much about what would prices be by the end of summer? I would assure myself the price would come down later in the summer, and they did. Unfortunately, the lower price of August was usually .25 to .50 cents/gal higher than the year before! 

I checked my travel journal for some past August price examples*. You can see the prices increases nearly every year:  2003 - $1.59/gal, 2004 - $1.83 to $1.93/gal, 2005 - $2.53 to $3.47/gal (California' price), 2006 - $2.99 to $3.19/gal, 2007 - $2.85 - $3.09. Notice the prices in 2007 were cheaper than 2006, but that was the exception to the norm.

The AAA agent told me Monday, the price this summer is $1.19 higher (nationwide) than last year's gas prices. That is a higher jump from years past. Some other market forces are at work.

USA Today attributed the oil prices drop to fewer miles driven in, Cost at pump dips as demand, oil prices fall,

Drivers in the USA logged 9.6 billion fewer miles in May than in May 2007, the government reported Monday. It was the third-largest monthly drop in 66 years.

But to me, that alone cannot account for the downturn in oil prices. If you look at the graph to the left, you see that oil prices started declining more steadily around the time the President announced he was removing the moratorium on offshore drilling. I believe if the Congress would approve domestic drilling, we would see more declines. 

If you look at the chart from this 2nd article, US drivers Log 9.6 B fewer miles in May, you see that Americans have been driving significantly less all year. May did not even mark the largest downturn, March did. If the price of oil was so dependent on driving alone, March's decline should have triggered a crude oil price reduction, shouldn't it have?

The data released Monday show that Americans drove 29.8 billion fewer miles in the first five months of this year compared with the same period last year, a 2.4% drop. The dip continues a seven-month trend beginning in November. Americans have driven 40.5 billion fewer miles from November through May compared with the same period a year earlier.

I believe we must start drilling in America if we want to see oil prices really decline. (Domestic drilling would also keep  billions of US $ at home, but that is another subject!) We are on a hair trigger as it stands now, where any natural or man-made disaster could push prices up. 

Unrest in non-OPEC countries, such as Nigeria, could push prices higher. Militants in that country sabotaged two oil pipelines Monday, driving crude prices for September delivery up $1.47 a barrel. A major hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico also could send oil prices higher.

"We could always have a spike to $150 a barrel," Smith says.

For right now, we can relax just a tiny bit and enjoy the typical price decrease of .40 to .50 cents/gallon in August. Too bad it is still .70 cents a gallon more ($1.19 nationwide) than last year!

 

*In 1979 gas prices were under 50 cents a gallon in the early summer! (Good thing.This was our 5 1/2 week, 8,000 mile Way Out West camping trip.)

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

 

  Americans for Prosperity, a nationwide grassroots group, was to have held a rally/press conference as part of their Brewer game Taxpayer Tailgate outing tomorrow. The rally was to raise awareness "about the serious threat global warming alarmism poses to our prosperity, including legislation being considered by Congress that would more than double gasoline prices."

But the Brewer's ballpark decided they did not want anything political going on in their parking lot and so they said NO to the hot air balloon rides and Hot Air Tour, the name of the rally. They will not put any of that in writing, but the hot air balloon permit was canceled just the same.

Of course the stadium still wants you to come to the tailgate at 3pm and game at 6pm though. (Translation, you can still come spend your money here.) 

Americans for Prosperity isn't about to let this snag squelch their rally though. They are moving the rally to their headquarters parking lot at 1126 S. 70th Street (located behind the K-mart shopping center in the old Allis Chalmers buildings on Washington and 70th.) It shouldn't be too hard to find, the 7 story high hot air balloon should mark the spot!

The actual Press Conference/Political event and free balloon rides (Hot Air Tour) are scheduled from 2:30 - 3pm, but you can gather and schmooze starting at 1:30pm.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner will be there, so will radio's Vicki McKenna, County Executive Scott Walker, State Representative Jim Ott (Meteorologist), AFP-WI State Director Mark Block, AFP Director of Communications Annie Patnaude, and Phil Williamson of  Fight Back Wisconsin. Williamson will be circulating his domestic oil drilling and oil refinery petition, or you may sign online.

After the rally, they will head over to the Taxpayer Tailgate at the stadium.

Email any questions to Brenda Baas at brenda.baas@afphq.org or call 414-475-2975.

As for coming to the ballpark and spending money there, well, if I had already purchased my Brewer ticket, I would probably be inclined to NOT buy a thing!

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

 

 

Most of us heard about Al Gore's JFK-like 10 year challenge last week for "America to run 'on 100% zero-carbon electricity in 10 years." Bret Stephens wrote about it and Al Gore in his Wall Street Journal piece, Al Gore's Doomsday Clock. He wrote, "though that's just the first step on his road to 'ending our reliance on carbon-based fuels.'  Serious people understand this is absurd. Maybe other people will start drawing the same conclusion about the man proposing it."

Do read the complete article. Bret Stephens presents many interesting statistics on where we have been and where we are going on our carbon-free electrical journey.

In Mr. Gore's prophecy, a transition to carbon-free electricity generation in a decade is "achievable, affordable and transformative." He believes that the goal can be achieved almost entirely through the use of "renewables" alone, meaning solar, geothermal, wind power and biofuels.

Um, Mr. Gore, last time I looked, biofuel was not zero-carbon. Plants themselves contain carbon in the form of simple sugars (that is what makes them a fuel), emit CO2 at night, and require carbon fueled tractors for cultivating the crop and later transporting crops to biofuel making factories and finally to gas stations.

Here, however, is an inconvenient fact (my emphasis throughout.) In 1995, the U.S. got about 2.2% of its net electricity generation from "renewable" sources, according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2000, the last full year of the Clinton administration, that percentage had dropped to 2.1%. By contrast, the combined share of coal, petroleum and natural gas rose to 70% from 68% during the same time frame.

Now the share of renewables is up slightly, to about 2.3% as of 2006 (the latest year for which the EIA provides figures). The EIA thinks the use of renewables (minus hydropower) could rise to 201 billion kilowatt hours per year in 2018 from the current 65 billion. But the EIA also projects total net generation in 2018 to be 4.4 trillion kilowatt hours per year. That would put the total share of renewables at just over four percent of our electricity needs.

Interestingly, Mr. Gore does not suggest carbon-free nuclear or hydro power,* which are not affected by cloudy or windless days:

Mr. Gore's case would also be helped if our experience of renewable sources were a positive one. It isn't. In his useful book "Gusher of Lies," Robert Bryce notes that "in July 2006, wind turbines in California produced power at only about 10% of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17% of their rated capacity." Like wind power, solar power also suffers from the problem of intermittency, which means that it has to be backed up by conventional sources in order to avoid disruptions. This is especially true of hot summers when the wind doesn't blow and cold winters when the sun doesn't shine.

And then there are biofuels, whose recent vogue, the World Bank believes, may have been responsible for up to 75% of the recent rise in world food prices. Save the planet; starve the poor.

Stephens concludes with this question, "A more interesting question is why Mr. Gore remains believable. Perhaps people think that facts ought not to count against a man whose task is to raise our sights..." and then he gives "The True Believer" author Eric Hoffer the last word, "It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible."

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of more environmentally favorable fuels and methods, as long as they make sense and cents! Fair Oaks Farm manure fueled electricity generators would be a good example of this. SC Johnson Co. (Johnson Wax) is also dabbling in methane from garbage fuel. But even these recycling methods are still carbon based.

Maybe some day, as technology improves, wind and solar might be able to more constantly supply the majority of our electricity. But for right now, we aren't there yet--not by a long shot.

 

Jay Weber spoke about this today in his 9 O'clock hour. 

*You would think hydro power would be favored by the environmentalists. Not true. While visiting the Grand Canyon 2 years ago, we heard of a movement afoot in the area to allow spring gushes. Seems the regular spring flooding of rushing water scoured the riverbed as opposed to the constant easy flow of a controlled river.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna