Environment First, or Economy First?

"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact" -- Charles Darwin.

Time to step back from the brink! Recent revelations of possible wrongdoing in Climate Research, now that the Climate Research Unit in the UK (CRU) data and correspondence has been at least partially, if unintentionally released, should raise many questions of scientific integrity. There needs to be a complete re-evaluation of the impact of environmentalist ambitions (in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC process) upon the world and its economy, as well as the possible corruption that government engenders in some scientists in their fight for government funding -- as Eisenhower warned.

So, should the environment, or should the economy come first in our thinking and efforts? Think about it carefully! We'd better get it right if we expect to survive as a species on this planet.

Not only are we, who think progress should logically prevail (for our sakes as well as that of the environment), losing this battle in government and schools, but so is the environment likely to lose big time if it goes to the top of our concerns, largely because of the misguided and ignorant actions of bureaucrats and environmental zealots, as well as over-funded scientists, who seem to forget -- regularly -- that actions which destroy our energy base and thus our wealth, have consequences; most often unintended consequences.

In N. Am and Europe; the formerly healthy economy -- the driver of all progress, as well as the real protector of the environment, through the wealth that our use of energy creates - is in a shambles. It is a struggle between the forces of a Free Market, and those of a stringently regulated (translation: government controlled and environmentalist-manipulated) 'socialist' one. As Margaret Thatcher pointed out - "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

There is a price to pay for such blind regulatory folly. For example:

The land of total fruits and nuts; California, is bankrupt because of socialist agendas, environmental posturing, political correctness, and ignorance. Their solutions? A 10% surtax on earnings! As well as a further prohibition on energy developments off the coast! As well as closing down irrigation in one of the best agricultural areas in the world.

The wealthy are fleeing New York in droves in response to punitive taxes. Most politicians have not figured out that raising taxes beyond a certain point, results in loss of tax revenue. President Reagan knew something it seemed. Job creation is driven mostly by small businesses. Give them a hefty tax break, instead of loading them with needless environmental penalties for daring to operate, and watch the jobs come back, and tax revenues to increase.

Companies that are the lifeblood of the economy and wealth creation, are heading offshore and to China and the far east. Other companies, which do not deserve to be rewarded for their inability to compete, often due to their utter incompetence and wealth destruction, are saved from bankruptcy by government largesse -- OUR money, not theirs! Jobs are disappearing.

The US Cap and Tax bill, along with the renewable mandates which it spawns, is designed to put our energy base, and thus our wealth generation out of existence, but that gem, is never admitted. We are expected to install super-expensive (about 3 to 5 times more expensive than nuclear power for the same energy delivered -- Altamont pass!) and incapable, cuisinarts of the bird and bat world across the landscape, and cover our roofs with unaffordable solar panels -- unaffordable to all but the very wealthy - if we don't paint them and the roads white (Energy Secretary Chu!).

We can, of course be forced to meet any foolish target the government sets for us if we only will allow them to close down our economy and to push us all back to the dark ages, and life expectancy of maybe 40 years or less. After all, what does it matter if we kill off a few billion people to do it, as long as it's them and not us. Snag is; it's us, this time!

With U.S. unemployment realistically up to 17+% in what was the most prosperous country in the world -- now owned to a large part by China - can a revolution be far behind? WE already had food riots in parts of the world, when the price of grains rose dramatically because of the idiocy of government mandated and subsidized biofuels and ethanol, in response to another environmentalist stupidity.

What triggered this social insanity? What do we think are the significant environmental threats?

What is the greatest threat to the environment and the economy?

Ignorance! Ignorance! And more ignorance! And the tolerance of it!

So what should we do? Learn about unintended consequences, and how society really functions! Re-read Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations. Put a healthy economy first. Get government out of our lives as much as possible. Limit its powers. Above all, make it (individuals) truly accountable. Get back to the constitution, instead of letting lawyers and the second most ignorant group on the planet after politicians -- environmentalists - punch holes in it and work around it and gut it.

We need to make those groups who try to de-rail our society, truly accountable in every way for their actions. Strip them of influence in government, a podium, and then their ill-gotten gains from their manipulative influences, and then ignore them as they deserve. Al Gore should be first in line for this opprobrium, but he's only one of many on my Gilbert and Sullivan little hit list.

Cap and Tax, and Renewable energy mandates. These are among the real killers of society, as they ensure that we will never have enough reliable or affordable energy to achieve a non-chaotic, energy sufficient society and industry.

Putting people to work in green jobs: This should NOT be a major goal of an economic plan. Rather, we should ensure that the jobs we create are those which contribute to wealth creation (jobs in fishing, farming, forestry, mining, oil and gas exploitation, and general resource development) rather than those which contribute to wealth destruction (bureaucrats, technocrats, government, and other service jobs which are not necessary). After all we could put everyone to work on treadmills if we chose, or recycling garbage -- mostly a stupidly expensive exercise - but all we would do is to kill society that much faster.

Exporting jobs: This seems to be the unintended (?) goal of the U.S. administration at this time. The intent seems to be to make the social environment punitive enough through taxes and unworkable environmental mandates ('renewable sources of (unreliable) energy, carbon dioxide as a pollutant -- when it is not), and now this recently exposed climate fraud, based upon climate change that happens all of the time anyway. If it gets publicized as it should, it might just save us from the CAP and TAX follies, that will destroy our economy. I hope we really do not have to sit back and watch as industry moves off to more friendly, less punitive, and cheaper jurisdictions, as it will if this stupidity gets enacted.

Controlling our energy use, is only one of the ambitious battles that has been playing out now for the last 30 years by environmentalists striving to control everything about our society, but is now building to the next step in Copenhagen (now called No-Hopenhagen by some) thanks to the ambitions of the UN to achieve world government and universal taxation at any cost. There is some hope that the UN, which is now feeling less and less optimistic about the likelihood of success this time around, will continue to fail. Hopefully, these revelations of possible climate fraud (climate-gate) will ensure that it happens.

This most recent 'climate change related' scandal which will take weeks to unfold fully, concerns the revelations of poor scientific behavior; (perhaps fraud, as well as scientific misconduct) in back and forth e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU, and the Hadley Centre) and other co-conspirators across N. America, and Europe. Their unabashed and clear intent was to obscure and manipulate the truth about the climate. No wonder Phil Jones (major player at CRU) did not want to release his data. It would not, could not, and did not stand up to impartial scrutiny. With the integrity of his manipulated data in doubt, the entire basis of the IPCC existence collapses. Someone had better tell the politicians about it though!

As Nigel Lawson (former advisor to Margaret Thatcher) recently wrote on this at Timesonline, concerning many prominent and influential climatologists: 'Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.'

In their numerous and revealing e-mails, they have also discussed 'losing' the data, and possibly did delete it; a criminal act. They have also co-erced better scientists to remain silent, or lose their jobs and sources of funding! Some, did lose their jobs.

We should have pulled the plug on the largely corrupt UN years ago, and its resident technocrats, tyrants and dictators, yet we won't, and they will do again what they have done many times before to wear us down, as long as the money keeps flowing into their hot and sticky little hands; agree not to agree until the next gabfest of social saboteurs, while they continue to massage the science to hide the truth, as they themselves now are shown to have done many times. The same is true of most environmental groups too.

How to change all of this with a stroke (or several) of the pen:

• Insist upon transparency and good supportable science, in all government decisions.