Obama the Socialist Failure, More Proof

UPDATE:  I figured it out. First he tried to destroy America with high gas prices Republi-cons claimed would soon be $5-10, even $15/gallon.

Now he's trying to destroy America with low oil prices.  "Forget $2 gas. Gas is getting close to the $1 mark in some parts of the country. "

Read CNN, Gas is near $1 a gallon in some places.

He's a sneaky you-know-what (use your favorite term to describe Obama).

Another representation of Obama's failure to fulfill Republi-con delusions, on December 11, 2015:

Read also:

Obama the Socialist Failure: Lower Unemployment, Deficits, Gas Prices and Inflation (What More Could He Do To Destroy America) and

Obama's Failure to Fulfill Republi-CON Predictions.

America's Addicition to Oil, and Support of Middle East Dictators

UPDATE II:  Now would be a good time to increase the federal gas tax by $1/gallon, so that we don't become complacent about the real cost of oil.

"We are witnessing a historic fall in the price of oil, down more than 50 percent in less than a year. When a similar drop happened in the 1980s, the Soviet Union collapsed. What will it mean now? . .

Many American experts and commentators have hoped for low oil prices as a way to deprive unsavory regimes around the globe of easy money. Now it’s happening, but at a speed that might produce enormous turmoil and uncertainty in an already anxious world."

Read the Washington Post, From Russia to Iran, the consequences of the global oil bust.  

UPDATE: Why not increase the federal gas tax by $1/gallon?

"The beauty of the tax — as a substitute for a high world price — is that the incentive for fuel efficiency remains, but the extra money collected at the pump goes right back into the U.S. economy (and to the citizenry through the revenue-neutral FICA rebate) instead of being shipped overseas to Russia, Venezuela, Iran and other unsavories.

Which is a geopolitical coup. Cheap oil is the most effective and efficient instrument known to man for weakening these oil-dependent miscreants.

And finally, lower consumption reduces pollution and greenhouse gases. The reduction of traditional pollutants, though relatively minor, is an undeniable gain. And even for global warming skeptics, there’s no reason not to welcome a benign measure that induces prudential reductions in CO2 emissions.

The unexpected and unpredicted collapse of oil prices gives us a unique opportunity to maintain our good luck through a simple, revenue-neutral measure to help prevent the perennial price spikes that follow the fool’s paradise of ultra-cheap oil.

We’ve blown this chance at least three times since the 1980s. As former French foreign minister Jean François-Poncet said a quarter-century ago, 'It’s hard to take seriously that a nation has deep problems if they can be fixed with a 50-cent-a-gallon' — 90 cents in today’s money — 'gasoline tax.' Let’s not blow it again."

Read the Washington Post, Raise the gas tax. A lot.

Would you support a $4/gallon gas tax?

Read the Washington Post, Can Americans handle the truth about gas prices?

So You Don't Believe in Global Warming, Then Explain What Happens to 35 Gigatons of CO2 Each Year

UPDATE X:  "[Guess] what the more accurate, current number for the human-made CO2 pollution put into the air every year is?

40 billion tons."

Read Slate, Did I Say 30 Billion Tons of CO2 a Year? I Meant 40.

UPDATE IX:  "In 2012, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell investigated peer-reviewed literature published about climate change and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. Despite a lot of sound and fury from the denial machine, deniers have not really been able to come up with a coherent argument against a consensus. The same is true for a somewhat different study that showed a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists supporting both the reality of global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.

Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!

One. Yes, one. . .

If you listen to Fox News, or right-wing radio, or read the denier blogs, you’d have to think climate scientists were complete idiots to miss how fake global warming is. Yet despite this incredibly obvious hoax, no one ever publishes evidence exposing it. Mind you, scientists are a contrary lot. If there were solid evidence that global warming didn’t exist, or that CO2 emissions weren’t the culprit, there would be papers in the journals about it. Lots of them."

Read Slate, The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial.  

UPDATE VIII:  That's 35 gigatons of CO2 each year "[f]or the roughly 7.2 billion people who live on Earth today. . . 

A recent United Nations analysis of world population trends indicates global population growth shows no signs of slowing, with current projections estimating a staggering 11 billion people could inhabit the planet by the year 2100, faster growth than previously anticipated. The majority of this surge in population is likely to occur in sub-Saharan Africa, with the population of Nigeria expected to surpass that of theUnited States before 2050, according to the statistical analysis."

Read Discovery News, What 11 Billion People Mean for Climate Change.

And overpopulation is not the only problem, it is also over-consumption.

What happens as those 'other' people start "eating imported Argentinian beef. Drinking wine from Australia. Playing Wii on flat-screen televisions. Driving 4,000-pound sport utility vehicles. Driving 1,400-pound compact cars. Driving at all. Using toasters. Shopping for new jeans. Leaving the lights on in more than one room at a time (not an option). Turning on a heater. Turning on an air conditioner. Taking a bath. Urinating into drinking water. Eating corn. Eating beef at all, Argentinian or otherwise. Deciding which pair of shoes to wear. Flying on airplanes. Using toothpicks. . .

On a carbon scale, one American equals about 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, and 250 Ethiopians."

Read Slate, Is Overpopulation Really the Problem?

UPDATE VII:  "Here’s a finding that shouldn’t be all that surprising: Since 1991, roughly 97 percent of all published scientific papers that take a position on the question agree that humans are warming the planet."

Read the Washington Post, Scientists agree on climate change. So why doesn’t everyone else?

UPDATE VI:  "The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported on Friday, reaching a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.

Scientific monitors reported that the gas had reached an average daily level that surpassed 400 parts per million — just an odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions under control are faltering.

The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea. . .

From studying air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists know that going back 800,000 years, the carbon dioxide level oscillated in a tight band, from about 180 parts per million in the depths of ice ages, to about 280 during the warm periods between. The evidence shows that global temperatures and CO2 levels are tightly linked.

For the entire period of human civilization, roughly 8,000 years, the carbon dioxide level was relatively stable near that upper bound. But the burning of fossil fuels has caused a 41 percent increase in the heat-trapping gas since the Industrial Revolution, a mere geological instant, and scientists say the climate is beginning to react, though they expect far larger changes in the future."

Read The New York Times, Carbon Dioxide Level Passes Long-Feared Milestone. 

UPDATE V:  "For decades now, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years — a fact scientists discovered by analyzing ancient air bubbles trapped in ice cores:

In fact, even that’s probably an understatement. Recent studies have estimated that current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are at their highest levels since the Pliocene, the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. "

Read the Washington Post, Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years.  

UPDATE IV:  'Droughts, wildfires, and unprecedented heat waves,' might be one explanation for 35 gigatons of CO2 each year.  Read the Washington Post, Odds of record U.S. heat being a random event: 1 in 1.6 million. 

UPDATE III: "Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. Remember, this was not long after the Climategate affair had erupted, at a time when skeptics were griping that climatologists had based their claims on faulty temperature data.

Muller’s stated aims were simple. He and his team would scour and re-analyze the climate data, putting all their calculations and methods online. Skeptics cheered the effort. . . The Charles G. Koch Foundation even gave Muller’s project $150,000 — and the Koch brothers, recall, are hardly fans of mainstream climate science.

So what are the end results? Muller’s team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science. Back in March, Muller told the House Science and Technology Committee that, contrary to what he expected, the existing temperature data was “excellent.” He went on: “We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” And, today, the BEST team has released a flurry of new papers that confirm that the planet is getting hotter. As the team’s two-page summary flatly concludes, “Global warming is real.”Here’s a chart comparing their findings with existing data:"



Read the Washington Post, A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data.


UPDATE II: Wonder what the deniers have to say about this? Read the Chicago Tribune, Stifling heat grips half U.S., some records set.

And take a look at the drought map, "the United States looks as if it has been set on fire and scorched at the bottom edge. Scorched is how much of the Southeast and Southwest feel, in the midst of a drought that is the most extreme since the 1950s and possibly since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. The government has classified much of this drought as D4, which means exceptional. The outlook through late September shows possible improvement in some places, but in most of Texas, Oklahoma, southern Arkansas, and northern Louisiana and Mississippi the drought is expected to worsen."

I guess someone should ask Pastor Truthiness (who likes to attribute horrible events to God's wrath over any idea, person, or group he hates) why God is punishing the Bible Belt. Could it be a sign of his displeasure with Pastor Truthiness' sermon's of hate and his support of Middle East dictators?


UPDATE: Maybe that 35 gigatons of CO2 is causing global warming after all. Prof. Richard Muller, a UC Berkeley physicist who has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation . . . [aimed at showing] researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted the data. . . [and] hoping that the Berkeley project would conclude that global warming is a myth were surprised when "Muller reported that his group’s preliminary results find a global warming trend 'very similar to that reported by the prior groups.'" Read the Los Angeles Times, Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming.

"Every year, human activity emits about 35 gigatons of CO2 (the most important greenhouse gas). Of that, 85% comes from fossil fuel burning. To a lot of people, that doesn't mean much -- who goes to the store and buys a gigaton of carrots? For a sense of perspective, a gigaton is about twice the mass of all people on earth, so 35 gigatons is about 70 times the weight of humanity. Every year, humans put that in the atmosphere, and 85% of that is power. Large actions, across whole nations and whole economies, are required to move the needle." Read The Atlantic, Why It's Hard to Talk About Energy.

Republi-CON Solyndra Half Truths

UPDATE IV:  Ricj Perry and Ron Paul weren't the only Republi-cons that were for government subsidies of clean energy, before they were against them.  Read the Washington Post, Romney’s conflicting remarks on Solyndra-like investments.

UPDATE III: "House Democrats on Wednesday called for Congress to expand its investigation into federal loan programs to include a Bush-era loan to the bankrupt broadband Internet firm Open Range.

Open Range went bankrupt earlier this month after receiving the federal government’s biggest broadband loan totaling $267 million. Its collapse has put in jeopardy $74 million in money doled out to the firm."

Read the Washington Post, Democrats call for investigation into bankrupt Open Range federal loans.

Another example of what goes around comes around.


UPDATE II: More Republi-con hypocrisy, shocking, NOT.

Two Republican presidential candidates who have spoken out against federal subsidies for energy projects tried to obtain such benefits three years ago. Read the Washington Post, Rick Perry, Ron Paul have mixed record on energy subsidies.


UPDATE: "Today, the Republican-led Energy and Commerce Committee is investigating Solyndra, forcing its executives to take the Fifth Amendment, and releasing embarrassing White House e-mails. I looked it up: every single Republican on that committee who was in office in 2005 voted for the loan guarantee program that they are now so gleefully condemning." Read The New York Times, Hooray for Federal Loans!

Did you know "that Solyndra was cleared to participate in this loan-guarantee program by President George W. Bush’s administration [and] that the legislation creating the loan-guarantee program, approved by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005, received yes votes from — wait for it — DeMint, Hatch and McConnell. . .

Bush’s Energy Department apparently adjusted its regulations to make sure that Solyndra would be eligible for the guarantees. It hadn’t originally contemplated including the photovoltaic-panel manufacturing that Solyndra did but changed the regulation before it was finalized. The only project that benefited was Solyndra’s."

Read the Washington Post, The birthing of Solyndra, which notes that the Obama "administration gave the company the loan guarantee, deserves the black eye that Republicans have given him over the half a billion dollars squandered on the company. But the Republican paternity of the program that birthed Solyndra suggests some skepticism is in order when many of those same Republicans use Solyndra as an example of all that is wrong with Obama’s governance."

The Republi-CON 'Obama's To Blame For Higher Gas Prices' Myth

UPDATE III: The "problem with politics in the age of searchable online news archives is that it’s the opposite of an Etch a Sketch: Nothing ever disappears." Read the Washington Post, Romney: For high gas prices before he was against them.


UPDATE II: "U.S. energy policy has very little effect either on oil prices or on overall U.S. employment. For the truth is that we’re already having a hydrocarbon boom, with U.S. oil and gas production rising and U.S. fuel imports dropping. If there were any truth to drill-here-drill-now, this boom should have yielded substantially lower gasoline prices and lots of new jobs. Predictably, however, it has done neither. . .

Why, then, are Republicans pretending otherwise? Part of the answer is that the party is rewarding its benefactors: the oil and gas industry doesn’t create many jobs, but it does spend a lot of money on lobbying and campaign contributions. The rest of the answer is simply the fact that conservatives have no other job-creation ideas to offer."

Read The New York Times, Natural Born Drillers.

Actually the title of the article should be Natural Born Liars.


UPDATE: "Who's to blame for gas prices now hovering near a national average of $3.80 a gallon? Take your pick: Iran, market speculators, oil companies, India.

India? Really?

Yes. Already the fourth largest energy consumer in the world, India's demand for oil looks set to rise inexorably as more of its people buy cars and take to the road. Ditto for China and other emerging markets. Their rising demand is pushing up prices for everyone."

Read the Christian Science Monitor, Gas prices too high. Blame India?

The graph says it all. From the Washington Post, Nope, more drilling won’t bring back $2.50 gasoline:



As the article notes:

"[O]il prices are set on a world market, and there are a whole bunch of factors that affect prices. A healthier global economy means more global demand for oil. That pushes prices up. A new wave of middle-class consumers in China and India have been replacing their bikes with automobiles. That pushes prices up. Oil fields are declining in countries like Mexico. That pushes prices up. Saudi Arabia seems to be running low on spare capacity. That pushes prices up. Tensions in Iran have prompted traders to set oil aside for potential supply disruptions in the future. That pushes prices up.

America’s domestic oil production, by contrast, is a small part of the global picture. Dean Baker lays out some numbers: 'U.S. production is roughly 8 million barrels a day, it accounts for less than 9 percent of a world-wide market that is close to 90 million barrels a day. Even if U.S. production could be increased by a third (an almost impossible increase) it would only increase world supply by 3 percent. This would lower the price of oil by 7-8 percent. This is not trivial, but it is not the difference between $2 a gallon gas and $4 a gallon gas.' Yes, more drilling could allow us to reduce our oil-import bill, and that’s no small thing. But drilling alone can’t bring back $2.50-per-gallon gasoline.

At best, there are only a few minor things the United States could try to do to influence gasoline prices right now. U.S. diplomats could try to resolve the conflict with Iran, which would calm the jittery markets. The White House could order a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, although analysts say this likely wouldn’t have a signficant [sic] impact on oil prices. If Congress really wanted to get creative, it could even shell out a bunch of money to prevent gasoline refineries from going bankrupt. (Okay, that last one isn’t a serious proposal, but refinery closings have helped nudge up gas prices in states like Pennsylvania.)

By and large, though, the country’s main option is the hard, boring option — the United States could try to become less dependent on oil, so that rising prices aren’t quite as difficult to cope with."

The best defense to rising oil prices, increasing efficiency (AKA conservation), which the Republi-CONs fight tooth and nail.

Cap and Trade and Save

"Criticism of cap-and-trade programs often centers on the costs they impose on electric power companies and their consumers. But as I report in Friday’s Times, New York and other Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states that are trying out such a system have found that those costs can be offset by energy efficiency measures paid for by the cap-and-trade program itself."

Read The New York Times, Reaping a Bonus From Cap-and-Trade.

And if you don't believe in global warming, then explain what happens to 35 gigatons of CO2 each year.

Does Palin Have a Point About the "Collusion of Big Government and Big Business and Big Finance to the Detriment of All the Rest — to the Little Guys"

UPDATE II: About that 'detriment of all the rest' of us, which I call predatory business practices, did you know that Wall Street "don’t want the American people to know the extent to which speculators keep oil prices artificially high and the great damage that does to our economy. " Read the Washington Post, What Wall Street doesn’t want us to know about oil prices.

All part of the Republi-CON war on the middle class.


UPDATE: More on Palin's observation regarding 'corporate crony capitalism', "[n]early 5,400 former congressional staffers have left Capitol Hill to become federal lobbyists in the past 10 years, according to a new study that documents the extent of the revolving door between Congress and K Street." Read the Washington Post, Revolving door of employment between Congress, lobbying firms, study shows.

At a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa, Palin "made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a 'permanent political class,' drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called 'corporate crony capitalism.' Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private)." Read The New York Times, Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide.

She could be a real reformer.

If you "look at what Palin did while in office in Alaska—the only record she has—[it] shows a very different politician: one who worked with Democrats to tame Big Oil and solve the great problem at the heart of the state’s politics." Read The Atlantic, The Tragedy of Sarah Palin.

If You Don't Like Gas Prices Now, Just Wait

There are "two major forces in the oil market, both of which are" scary. Read the Washington Post, If only speculation explained gas prices.

How to Plug that BP Well

UPDATE III: Another from Mike, who said "[m]ost people have enough decency not to post this. Not me, though."

BP's final attempt to stop the leak....




UPDATE II: But serious, has anyone heard from Big Oil's Big Daddy, Dick 'Chickenhawk' Cheney? He must be reading the report from his secret energy task force. You know, the one that "presented a rosy picture of the offshore drilling industry."

From Mother Jones, Dick Cheney's Last Laugh:

Many of the recommendations from the task force report were adopted in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. That legislation provided $6 billion in subsidies for oil and gas development. Royalty payments for oil and gas development were waived in several regions of the US. Some companies were allowed to pay royalties with oil, rather than money—a less transparent system that was more vulnerable to abuse. The bill also provided $1.5 billion in direct payments to companies to incentivize drilling in deepwater wells, and curtailed the power of states to oversee oil and gas exploration off their coasts under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

In addition, the bill weakened environmental protections for offshore drilling, making it easier to exclude a broad range of exploration and drilling activities from analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. This has been cited as the reason that the Deepwater Horizon site was not subjected to a thorough environmental analysis.

The task force's final report also presented a rosy picture of the offshore drilling industry. Newer oil and gas drilling methods, it said, "practically eliminate spills from offshore platforms" and "enhance worker safety, lower risk of blowouts, and provide better protection of groundwater resources." The report advocated lifting the moratorium on portions of the outer continental shelf, noting that "concerns over the potential impacts of oil spills have been a major factor behind imposition of the OCS moratoria." Bush lifted the executive moratorium in 2008, and the Democratic-controlled Congress allowed its own moratorium to expire.

UPDATE: From Mike:

BP OIL LEAKED STOPPED!

BP put a giant wedding ring over the ruptured oil pipe, and it immediately stopped putting out.

The best suggestion I've heard/seen yet:

As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap

UPDATE VIII: Spill, baby, spill!

"Right now, royalty rates for offshore leases end up promoting dangerous deep-water drilling — the deeper you drill, the less you have to pay the government in royalties. Under the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act of 1995, Congress even waived royalties on millions of barrels of oil for certain deepwater leases from 1996 to 2000. This and other royalty relief programs have deprived the Treasury of billions of dollars in revenue, while rewarding the riskiest drilling in the deepest waters. " Read The New York Times, The Good Driller Award.


UPDATE VII: Quit whining. "The Niger Delta, where the wealth underground is out of all proportion with the poverty on the surface, has endured the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez spill every year for 50 years by some estimates. The oil pours out nearly every week, and some swamps are long since lifeless. " Read The New York Times, Far From Gulf, a Spill Scourge 5 Decades Old.

The article includes pictures of the ecological damage.

SUV driving Americans never cared about oil spills before. Where did they think the gas came from?


UPDATE VI: RICO's to blame for "an ecological Armageddon that could literally destroy the marine and coastal environment and way of life for generation of Americans." Read the Pensacola News Journal, RICO suit: BP manipulated Bush team.

To read the court documents, click here.

Sounds like the complaint is largely about the political process -- the American public voted for deregulation and they got what they voted for:

The biggest oil spill ever. The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The deadliest mine disaster in 25 years. One recall after another of toys from China, of vehicles from Toyota, of hamburgers from roach-infested processing plants. The whole Vioxx fiasco. And let's not forget the biggest climate threat since the Ice Age.

And with deregulation, there is no longer a need to export our industrial catastrophes, such as Union Carbide's Bhopal disaster.

Yet the faux populists of the Tea Party train their anger on the government while giving corporations a pass. And Obama, accused of being a socialist, has actually been a no-fault capitalist, cleaning up corporate messes without winning much in the way of new laws to prevent a recurrence.

Too many corporations have survived their misdeeds with no more than an angry hearing or two: GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Bank of America, Massey Energy. The legislative dressing-down obviously isn't sufficient deterrent. Neither is firing the CEO, because he's invariably replaced by another just like him.

Thus, the court should dismiss the complaint and remind the public, we've got the best government business interest can buy.


UPDATE V: What is the true cost of gas? Read the Washington Post, Think gas is too pricey? Think again.

Also "[a] quenchless thirst for whale oil, then petroleum, pushed man ever farther and deeper. And with great hubris, great risk." Read The New York Times, The Ahab Parallax: ‘Moby Dick’ and the Spill.


UPDATE IV: "While the gulf tragedy is the big oil story of the moment, Ecuador is still hurting from destructive drilling going back decades.” Read The New York Times, Disaster in the Amazon.

And did you know, "[t]he oil deposit now leaking slowly into the sea would have provided about five days' worth of oil to Americans." Read The New York Times, For Five Days of Oil.

Was it worth it?


UPDATE III: ""Deregulation" is wonderful until we discover what happens when regulations aren't issued or enforced. Everyone is a capitalist until a private company blunders. Then everyone starts talking like a socialist, presuming that the government can put things right because they see it as being just as big and powerful as its Tea Party critics claim it is. " Read the Washington Post, Gulf oil spill offers a lesson in capitalism vs. socialism.

Note: regulation is not socialism.

How ya likin that laissez-faire capalism now! Not everybody does. Read the Washington Post, Time for industry to end its war on regulation.


UPDATE II: "An environmental 9/11 is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. Will President Obama have the courage to ask the country to get behind a new strategy on energy?" Read The New York Times, Obama and the Oil Spill.

Or will we continue to reap 'the benefits' of our oil addiction, including environmental catastrophes and terrorism.


UPDATE: There is an old proverb, author unknown: "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." Read the Washington Post, Oil well's blowout preventer had leaks, dead battery, design flaws.

Don't ya just love that Republi-con -- less government, less regulation, and more freedom -- ideology now. The banksters, mining companies, and oil companies sure do!

"[T]he Minerals Management Service became subservient to the oil industry — although what actually happened is almost too lurid to believe. According to reports by Interior’s inspector general, abuses at the agency went beyond undue influence: there was “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity” — cocaine, sexual relationships with industry representatives, and more. Protecting the environment was presumably the last thing on these government employees’ minds." Read The New York Times, Sex & Drugs & the Spill.

After decades of antigovernment ideology, what did you expect?

Do You Support Terrorist and Dictators?

You do if you oppose a sensible energy strategy. And even if you don't believe in global warming, you should support renewable energy.

Read The New York Times, What They Really Believe.