Scott versus Scott

Welcome to our blog. Here we will debate the days most serious topics and allow users the chance to discuss the topics as well. The range of topics will vary, but one thing will remain certain, the debate will rage on. Scott Lesinski is a proud conservative and Scott Jones is a proud liberal. However, the roles will switch on some topics. Stay tuned.

Scott Lesinski is currently an actuarial associate for a large human resources and insurance consulting firm in Saint Louis. He is also an avid student of US history and enjoys following current events, with an eye to their contextual relationship to the past. He is also, in fact, a former student of Mr. Scott Jones. Scott is working toward his FSA credentials, which is akin to earning a PHD in Actuarial Science.

Scott Jones is currently a high school social studies teacher at a high school in suburban St. Louis, MO. He teaches World History, AP American Government and Senior American Foreign Policy. He has a BS. Ed. (Secondary Social Studies) from the University of Missouri - Columbia and a M.A. (History) from Southeast Missouri State University. He is currently working on a dissertation in character education to earn a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Anatomy of Deception – Environmentalist wackos, including President Obama, are living a lie on purpose

"I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this” – Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in response to a reporter’s inquiry into the legitimacy of the science surrounding the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement.

"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," [Gibbs] said during Monday's press briefing.

My friends, in case you haven’t yet heard, the “Man-made Global Warming” hoaxers have been utterly exposed for the world-wide frauds that they are. Two weeks ago, a hacker/blogger broke into the servers at the Climate Research Unit at the East Anglia University in England – the premier climate research organization on the planet. The hacker uncovered and posted for all to see over a thousand emails between Professor Phil Jones and various correspondents. I’ve posted the link below so you can have a look:

Among these emails you can find very clear evidence that for the past twenty years, this “research” organization has been doctoring data, cherry picking data, excluding data, and denying freedom of information requests to fellow scientists who wanted to try and reproduce their “results”.

One of the main people with whom Phil Jones corresponded in the emails is Michael Mann out of Penn State. This same Michael Mann is the “scientist” who claimed to disprove the “Medieval Warm Period”, that is, the data from ice cores that show that during the medieval times, the Earth was in fact; much hotter than it is today and guess what, there was no industrialization happening at that time. Mr. Mann’s “study” was based on tree-ring data that he attempted to correlate with CO2 levels and temperature readings from the forest in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. However, Mr. Mann’s study wouldn’t have been awarded a green ribbon at the Queeny Park Science Fair. He used a sample size of three trees. He cherry-picked the three trees that he could make to fit into his preconceived notion of his results. Furthermore, recent studies of this same forest have shown that recent tree ring data is uncorrelated with CO2 and temperature data from the past 20 years, further damning the idea that such a small sample of data from a thousand years ago could prove anything.

This discovery has proven what I’ve been saying for several years and what people like Rush Limbaugh have been saying for 21 years: the “Man-Made (Anthropogenic) Global Warming” movement is a hoax. It is the single largest scientific hoax and revelation in history since we discovered the Earth was round. But the most damning thing is that is was NOT an accident. What has been passed on as science in the area of climate and meteorology for the past 20 years constitutes felony fraud. The CRU, Michael Mann, the IPCC, Al Gore, and the thousands of other Enviro-wackos that have been pushing this hoax need to be investigated. Science has come under assault.

Now to get back to Robert Gibbs and his idiotic blathering: He claims that there is no scientific reason to doubt the AGW movement.

None? Not any sliver of doubt is able to penetrate that thick skull? He doesn’t think any reasonable person could harbor doubts regarding the legitimacy of the science at all, even despite the fact that the Mecca of the AGW movement has been shown to be a total and complete fraud? No doubt whatsoever, eh Gibbs? Hogwash.

Gibbs is the mouthpiece of Obama, who is continuing to choose to live in the world of Lies and Deception. Obama still plans on attending the Copenhagen summit where the world’s leaders plan on working on a global treaty to try to “solve climate change”. What a freaking idiot! How stupid does he think we are? The entire basis for the Copenhagen summit has just been shot to hell and yet these “world leaders” are going through with their stated objective.

My friends, fellow readers, this is not by accident. Obama and these world leaders have a motive, an agenda if you will. The goal of this summit is to impose a one world government that has power to impose penalties on all countries who sign on. They want to put in a global “cap and trade” scheme they say to “save the climate”. The truth is, they want to redistribute America’s wealth to the rest of the world and they want to be able to do it by force. Our president is planning on signing away our own sovereignty as a nation. Fortunately, he won’t have any domestic legislation to bring to the table. Here’s a great headline:

“Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws”

You have to go to the UK media to find any real coverage of this incredible bust of a story, but there you have it: the ONLY reason for Cap and Trade is that supposedly, by virtue of our progress and lifestyle, by virtue of our diet, by virtue of what we exhale, we are destroying the planet and we must be penalized to stop us from doing so. Well, fortunately, God did not make it so that His people, simply by using their God-given brains to improve their lives, would be destroying His creation. We finally have proof of that fact.

I have detailed the vast increase in costs to every American family this Cap and Trade legislation would have brought: it would be far worse if the UN or some other intergovernmental body had the power to legislate our energy use. Furthermore, any such legislation would be based on a lie and would exist for the SOLE purpose of increasing taxes on us, the American Citizens, and usurping our freedom. The crimes against humanity already having been done on behalf of this warped, sick mentality have cost us millions if not billions over the past twenty years in extra taxes and lost productivity and higher energy costs. CO2 does not cause global warming. Period. Those who have been making that claim while purporting to be “scientists” are liars and need to be fired at the least if not prosecuted for the material damages they have caused mankind all over the world. Just think of all the things that we have already done or nearly done, and need to remedy as a result of this hoax:

Science textbooks need to be rewritten all around the world.

The incandescent light bulb needs to be immediately unbanned (that goes into effect in 2012).

We need to open up our supplies of oil, natural gas, and coal and stop throwing good money after bad in the fruitless quest for “renewables” like wind and solar.

By virtue of government legislation, we required the forced destruction of otherwise perfectly operable automobiles in a ridiculous “Cash for Clunkers” scheme.

We have almost passed the second largest freedom-grab and tax hike in our history by virtue of Cap and Trade legislation.

We have almost signed away national sovereignty in the name of fixing a problem that does not exist and could not be fixed by our hand if it did.

We have caused serious psychological trauma to millions of school children by convincing them that cute and cuddly animals like the polar bears were going to go extinct because of US, not to mention all the phony fear ginned up over draughts, floods, hurricanes, blizzards, locusts, etc that would all result from Man Made Global Warming.

This is seriously a hoax of the grandest proportions with the most evil of agendas. We need to demand that our leaders in Congress and Obama pull their heads out of their behinds and apologize on behalf of this phony science. They could claim ignorance if they wanted; (I do not believe for a second that they are innocent) however, every day that they continue on with this Anthropogenic Global Warming nonsense proves that they do not care about truth. Obama and Pelosi and Reid, et al., have an agenda and they will stop at nothing to see it through.

Remember this on November 3, 2010. Good leaders, liars do not make.


  1. Ok, a few points...

    First, I have never been a strong proponent of global warming. From a amateur study of things, a mini ice age from the early 1500s to the 1850s engulfed the northern hemisphere. Since then, the world has been slowly warming (in fact, there seems to evidence the world is entering into a new cooling phase). This just happens to coincide with the industrial revolution. Pure correlation, but science has had difficulty showing causation on this.

    However, I can't stand to listen to conservatives hijack the debate about cap and trade. I know some liberals have used global warming as justification (a very bad move), but cap and trade is just simply a move to guarantee all people in America have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. I struggle with the implementation plan that has been proposed, but the goals are worthy and have little to do with global warming.

    Overall, good post Scott. Science has been a very powerful tool in creating a better world. However, science without morals can destroy.

    When the science is clear and moral, then it can be the greatest thing (see The Germ Theory of Disease). However, the science can be used immorally (see Nuclear Energy). Sometimes science can be good and possible, but the morality is unclear (see Stem Cell Research).

    The debate must always continue.

  2. "cap and trade is just simply a move to guarantee all people in America have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink."

    I honestly won't believe you truly believe that. Comon man, you're way to smart to believe that's "simply" what it's about. Right?

    The last part of your post I could take issue with but we've already talked about that. I don't want to get off on a tangent and away from the fact you believe it's only about clean air and water.

    That's laughable.

  3. One other thing to add...

    Incandescent light bulbs don't contaminate my air or water, but the MERCURY in CFL's could probably do a pretty good job at that.

  4. Hijack the debate?!

    Scott J, name one prominent politician out there saying we have to put in Cap and Trade to protect our air and water. Name ONE!

    The reason people out there like Al Gore, Barack "Let this be the hour when the sea levels began to decline" Obama, Nancy Pelosi, et al have been pushing Cap and Trade for the past several years has been about stopping CO2 emissions because CO2 "cause" global warming.

    You are throwing up a red herring my friend. Clean air and water were addressed in the 1970s, and we've done a damn good job of fixing those issues. Seriously, you are the first person I've heard use that as any justification for Cap and Trade much less the main one.

    Dude, CO2 does not pollute water! I'm so confused right now with this offered reason. We've been hearing for years about how the planet is going to burn up, sea levels will rise, hurricanes will somehow appear at the equator and spin the wrong direction, its going to be a climatic catastrophe if we don't act right now and impose the biggest freedom grab and tax hike in history!

    You've bought the line my friend. The whole premise for Cap and Trade has been blown to smithereens, so you switch out reasons on a dime and claim it was only ever about having clean air and water...phew.

  5. Sorry, I just keep thinking of more and more to write...

    If it's really about clean air and water, why is the government essentially legalizing pollution? If you can pay for it you can pollute as much as you want. If you don't pollute as much as you could, don't worry someone else can.

    And before you say you have the right to clean air and water, you don't technically have rights to them because if you did, the government wouldn't make the decisions about those rights for you.

    Even Greenpeace says this bill is going for politics over science. Not that I trust the "science" they believe, but if they're not even behind the fact that it is only about clean air and water, what does that say?

  6. I wanted to also add more things that the global warming hoaxers are responsible for harming:

    Higher food prices from 2006-2008 due to the biofuel craze brought on by these liars caused food shortages and hunger and is partly responsible for people going hungry and starving to death, not to mention the CO2 output of converting forested land over to soy beans...not that I believe CO2 output to be a bad thing, but what the heck?

  7. Okay, I can handle having different justifications, but Wardo, the personal attacks are out of line. If you think me naive, fine, but being naive doesn't make me wrong. You should follow the example of your conservative brother here and use facts and not name-calling and hyperbole. If I wanted that, I'd debate Limbaugh.

    CO2 doesn't cause bad water, but it does cause bad air, especially when combined with CO. Sure we've done a good job cleaning up water and air since the 1970s, but we can still do better.

    When I hear conservatives constantly keeping the EPA from doing their job of keeping water and air clean, then I do get offensive. If conservatives would let the EPA do its job, then we wouldn't even need to have cap and trade on the table.

    I expect some attack on the EPA here, but remember it was created at the wish of Nixon and is the reason for the success Scott claims has been made since the 1970s.

  8. Scott - I did not just simply change the purpose. The original proposal for a cap-and-trade system is just as I described. However, before researching yourself (after all, you have Rush to tell what is true), you claim I am the one that is out in left field.

    Please read the following article, to find out the history of cap-and-trade before the global warming conspirators took it over.

  9. Well so you learn something new every day, eh? I didn't realize that we already are using a cap and trade scheme to limit sulfur dioxide emissions. Interesting.

    Alright, so the ORIGINAL purpose of Cap and trade was to clean up the air and water. I'm sorry for doubting you. However, that does not dispell the fact that the current justification for furthering the reach of Cap and Trade to Carbon Dioxide for the expressed purpose of stopping the effects of man-made global warming is based on fraudulent data and a hoax.

    Scott, this article highlights the huge successes that the Clean Air Act resulted in regarding the level of pollution in the air and water. You say we can do better, but I say, in what respect?

    CO2 is essential for life on Earth. Every bit of "science" that claims CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming has been called into question and cannot be judged as reliable, especially as the basis for a vast expansion of taxes and regulation.

    I ask you, first off, where do we still see problems with air pollution in this country? Surely we can agree that there are only very small, isolated areas of large concentrations of people where this is a problem in the US. So why then do we have to impose a massively expensive, one-size fits all national cap and trade scheme to clean up those very few, isolated areas (I'm thinking of Los Angeles)?

    If your goal truly is to do better with polluted air, lets address the specific problems with targeted, city-wide programs...not a national economy killing disaster.

    But bear in mind that your brethren on capitol hill are pushing this on the basis of man made global warming...which is a hoax period.

  10. I can't help my brethren on the Hill more than you could help your brethren during the Bush Administration.

    I can agree with you about targeting certain areas. However, as the article suggests, local areas weren't willing to move until the Federal government began moving.

    Does it have to be national policy...I can accept that with the help of the power of the Federal government, local governments can help solve the problem, but it goes into a competition quagmire then.

    Why would LA want to clean up its air, if their standards raised costs and businesses could just move to San Francisco that doesn't have the same pollution issues, which makes the cost of doing business there cheaper.

    On top of that, LA's problem has little do it with the amount of emissions (as measured in other cities) and has more to do it with its geography.

    Again, I don't know if local governments are up to this task. At the same time, I don't think Boulder, CO should have to pay for the cost of cleaning up the air in LA. On top of that, Boulder, however, as a geographic advantage in the air issue that LA doesn't have. Should LA be punished for that?

  11. Alas, this is the great debate between individualists and central planners. Ayn Rand was a sage.

    I see elevated levels of air pollution in Los Angeles as Los Angeles' problem. If the individuals who live there are really ticked off about the pollution, they have a couple of choices. 1, they can petition the government to enforce emission reduction standards. 2, they can move somewhere else. Life may not be fair, but we are not entitled to live where we want under whatever public circumstances we personally desire. If you personally are more allergic to ground level ozone and it is a major issue for your life, move away from the higher levels of ground level ozone.

    Attempts by the government (federal) to micromanage the day to day lives of citizens is what we call Central Planning aka Fascism aka Statism. There are varying degrees of severity and we accept some for the general rule of law. However, you're talking about trying to fix a very minor problem that doesn't really affect the vast majority of the country by imposing a nation-wide "solution" that will in all actuality end up causing way more harm than good.

  12. However, I'd like to get your comments on the central theme of this post originally, which is that our Congress and President are purposefully, willfully pushing a hoax in order to ram through an agenda item. Whatever the original purpose for Cap and Trade, the claims being made by John Holdren (Obama's "science czar"), Robert Gibbs, and by proxy, Obama himself, center on the "fact" that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere put there by human activity and progress are causing our planet to heat up at an abnormal rate. They then claim that such warming will be damaging (devastating really) to the people of the Earth and for our survival. Their solution is to cap the amount of CO2 that can be emitted by individuals and businesses, all the while jacking up energy costs through the roof to necessarily negate our consumption of those resources.

    We know now that their premise for this increase in spending, taxation, and limitation on our liberty is totally fraudulent. That is, CO2 does not act to heat up the Earth and capping CO2 emissions will not decrease the warming of the Earth by any measurable degree. (Or rather, I should say that it has not been proven that CO2 heats the Earth, etc) Thousands of scientists (31,000) have signed a petition stating their denial of the Warmers' proposition, yet we hear from Gibbs that 2,500 scientists say it is happening and caused by man, so we have a consensus. Nonsensical pablum, the lot of it.

    I contend that the more Obama and his ilk pretend that the science is settled and move forward with this Copenhagen treaty or any domestic "global warming" legislation, the more we know that this man cannot be trusted with anything he says or does. He is willfully denying scientific skepticism in favor of radical BS environmentalism. Now why would he do that?

  13. As I stated earlier, I am not a strong believer in global warming as caused by mankind.

    Why would Obama support these measures? Same reason that Republicans oppose everything he does. In the same way Democrats oppose everything Republicans do.

    When it comes to power in DC, both parties are guilty of trying to win the game. If we agree with the other party, the voter might not see a difference between us. The name of the game is to oppose everything of the other side.

    This is why, as we discussed in an earlier post, term limits and/or more than two parties could help create a government our Founders intended. Washington self-imposed term limits on himself and Jefferson believed that no person should serve the people in any capacity for more than 12 years.

    According to Franklin, those who were elected should be considered privileged, but understand their job is to serve and not be served.

    I think things started to really change with the Jackson presidency and the Civil War completely changed the way power in DC is viewed by those inside the Beltway.

  14. Central planning can be considered Statism from the sense it is the state doing the planning.

    However, I am tired of conservatives using the word fascism wrong. It was wrong when liberals used it against Bush and it is wrong now.

    For fascism to exist, there must be rampant nationalism to justify the central planning. In the cases of both Bush and Obama, nationalism is not present, nor is it used to justify any central planning whether it be economic or security.

  15. I realize this is not relative to the central theme of these posts, but I just have to point out...

    Scott L- why is it you seem to have such a disliking for wind and solar? Wind and solar are two excellent viable options! I don't think the government needs to be spending great deals of money on it since the government obviously can't manage our money, but don't diss wind and solar. Our resources are finite. This is fact.

    Scott J- The Germ Theory of Disease is riddled with controversy. The science surrounding it is scandalous. This was admitted by Pastuer on his death bed. Check your facts.

  16. While Pasteur might've questioned the science of the germ theory of disease, other scientists perfected the theory and it became the basis of modern medicine. Once people were convinced that it was germs/viruses causing the sickness and not God, then humans developed things such as Penicillin and vaccinations. A much healther society. So while Pasteur might've doubted his work on his deathbed, other scientists took up the cause, perfected it and then applied it.

    I don't think you'll find too many people today (I know some exist) that argue against modern medicine, which got its big step forward with the Germ Theory of Disease.

  17. Just so you can understand, below is a statement taken directly from the purpose behind "Waxman-Markey" the Cap n Trade bill.

    To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.

    Not about global warming eh?

    Here's another fun fact that we've tossed around alot, considering that this bill may or may not have been passed to help clean up the air and create energy independence, let's examine a government agency created thirty years ago called the DoE, Department of Energy.

    They were created for the sole purpose to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, nearly 30 years ago! Great job eh?

  18. Blitz, we have a problem with alternative energies because none of them can step up and do what oil has done for us so far.

    Wind - Besides the fact they're and eyesore/noisy and Ted Kennedy fought to keep windmills out of his own state, they kill people during the winter and don't provide nearly the energy needed like oil/electricity does.

    Solar - Decent but only on small scales for simple tasks (like building a house around absorbing heat to reduce the need for additional heating.

    Ethanol - Yeah not even going there

    Hydrogen - Is not nearly as safe as Nuclear

    Nuclear - I'm not sure why we're aren't using this more honestly

  19. "Why would Obama support these measures? Same reason that Republicans oppose everything he does. In the same way Democrats oppose everything Republicans do."

    This is not a good enough reason. Republicans (the conservatives up there at least) oppose most everything Obama is pushing because they know how devastating his main policy agenda items will be for our country. The two main issues are Healthcare and Cap and Trade. We now know that the entire premise for Cap and Trade has been shown to be a fraud. There is some evidence to indicate that NASA has been doctoring its own data for many years as well and Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has issued NASA a warning that if they do not release original climate data that has been subject to a FOIA request for over two years by the end of December, he's going to sue them to release it.

    There is a difference between pushing healthcare or tax increases or affirmative action or any other liberal idea, and Cap and Trade, because with the latter, we are not arguing political ideology anymore. We have the facts and we know that its bunk. So simply saying that Obama is pushing it to differentiate himself from Republicans is not good enough. He's bold faced supporting a lie. He's trying to act based on lies and misinformation to the public and it has been exposed and even still, he's out there pushing Congress to act. This whitewash of the truth is not going to work because we have the new media and what the President and his ilk in Congress and the adminstration are doing is an absolute disgrace.

  20. Katie,

    I am not "opposed" per se, to wind and solar. As Todd pointed out, and I'll add to it, wind is a pretty bad source of energy. Its inconsistent, creates all kinds of environmental hazards such as excess noise, dangers in winter, etc, and actually uses a fair amount of fossil fuel to run since windmills must be run off of an engine that uses gas in order to moderate the flow of energy.

    Solar is acceptable for places like New Mexico but would be a pretty stupid idea in St. Louis, as one good (and fairly regular) hailstorm would lay waste to any decent energy collection facility. Solar doesn't have the potential to power our world like oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear.

    I am very tired of the demonization of these fossil fuels. Oil is one of the greatest resources we have on the planet. So many products are produced or made possible because of it and we are so good at extracting it that we are actually cleaner than mother nature in many respects. One bad accidental oil spill and its all negative hype for oil.

    Same for coal and natural gas. We have enough oil just in American reserves that its estimated we could switch to ONLY American oil and be totally independent for 100 years. Why not go after our own such supplies? Why continue to force ourselves to fund terror sponsoring nations like Saudi Arabia and dictators like Hugo Chavez?

    That is my point on sources of energy. There is no reason for us to be so dependent on foreign oil or anything, yet Democrats seek to keep us from using our own resources! It is so backasswards and closed-minded it makes me sick!

  21. Scott,

    Fair enough on the cap and trade as it concerns CO2. I think my point was more along the lines of the Bush adminstration's refusal to accept that Saddam Huissen never had weapons of mass destruction, nor was he actually trying to develop them. When the criticism started to come from Democrats, Bush and his foreign policy team dug in their heels and continued to try and tell America that Iraq did have such weapons.

    The only reason I can think Bush did that is because the criticism was coming from Democrats. If he would've simply admitted that he and the rest of the world had been duped by Hussein, but we are going to stay the course because of the terrible genocide Hussein had committed (similar to the reason for Clinton's invation of Serbia), he would've been much better. Yes, he would've had to given in to the Democrats some, but the overall war would've been stronger.

    My only reason for Obama and other liberals to continue to hammer for cap and trade is that they've committed so much to it, that to admit to Republicans that they were wrong, would be to admit defeat, which never works well in election time (see Election of 2004 in that if Bush had admitted to failing on the WMD issue, that election might've had a different outcome).

  22. On a different note, the conservatives here make a good point concerning solar and wind energy. Not to say that we should take anything off the table, these technologies are still far behind in being of actual use to our power needs.

    Oil and coal remain the most important. We could still probably do a better job at making sure the emissions from these plants are cleaner, but we can't replace them with alternatives.

    On a side note, clean coal is a myth. We can have cleaner coal, but never clean coal.

    Todd, to the nuclear plants - I am with you there. Callaway County produces 11% of the total electricity created by AmerenUE. Overall, nuclear power accounts for 20% of the total electricity output in the US. This output comes from about 125 nuclear plants in the US, many of which have more than one reactor.

    Nuclear power creates clean energy, with the only waste being the radioactive material, which is all currently stored at each facility.

    Compare this with France, which creates about 75% of its electricity needs with nuclear power.

    While the Republican mantra with Palin has been "Drill, baby, Drill."

    I think we should have a slogan regarding nuclear power as "Build, baby, Build!!!"

  23. SJ,

    I see what you're saying about political expediency. I'm still not fully convinced that Saddam did not have WMD, but that we gave him such a warning and then played that silly game with Hans Blix for so long that Hussein easily moved his WMD out of the country before we could find him. You have to admit there were some very strong...irregularities and games that went on involving that UN inspection. Besides, didn't we give Saddam WMD back when he was the lesser of two evils? So we know that he had them and it was his responsibility to prove otherwise. I'll admit that with the way it was reported and with the Bush admin refusing to defend itself, it sure appears that the intelligence community of the world got that wrong. I still think its fishy.

    If what you say then is true about Obama and the Dems going full bore with something they know is a hoax, I think they are total idiots. They are political suicide bombers. What with the economy the way it is right now, and with this healthcare debacle on the horizon, the voters know and are becoming more vocal each and every day about the truth. I think that this Cap and Trade thing, if passed or even worked on harder/pushed more in the upcoming months, will, along with Healthcare, spell doom for the Dems in 2010.

    What would be so bad in acknowledging that they were hoaxed right along with the rest of the world by these climate "scientists", throw them under the bus, and move on?

    As far as nuclear energy goes, I'm right there with you, but why not put all energy options on the table? Drill baby Drill and Build baby Build.

    THe problem is, Democrats in Congress, spurred on by Environmentalist wackos, keep throwing up roadblock after roadblock to both of these energy solutions. We can't drill off Florida, can't drill off the upper northwest, can't drill in ANWR...its stupid! Meanwhile, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia are going for the oil under the Gulf of Mexico which should be ours! Why let them claim it?

    As for nuclear, I'm with you in not comprehending why we have so much red-tape involved with setting up new plants. Lets get the government out of the way.