To all our readers: Big changes coming, new site launch imminent

By Justin, ILCD

The growth has been nothing short of phenomenal, the kind emails and support have been heartwarming, and the attitude of the public is shifting immensely thanks to all the sites in this vast network of skeptics getting the truth out there.

I’m working on a new website currently, it should be online within the next two weeks. It will become a real-time newsfeed of all your favourite skeptic sites so you no longer have to check each site one by one every day.

Rest assured, I am confident you will all LOVE the name of the new site. Stay tuned.

info [at]

Only 34% Now Believe Global Warming Caused By Human Activity

By Justin C, ILCD editorGlobal warmers are down to the lunatic fringe. Most normal people now realize that “Global Warming” and climate changes are as natural as a sunny day, and that there has been no global warming for over a decade, and that carbon dioxide is not a cause.
From Rasmussen:

Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame. Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure. These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends.

That is a shift of a whopping 14% in one year. Each year it shifts even more. Soon there will be nobody left believing it except possibly David Suzuki in his psychiatric hospital.
Unfortunately, the US President and Congress are card-carrying members of the Global Warming Hoax Club and the US economy is about to be decimated with a Cap and Trade tax designed to reduce a planetary condition we didn’t cause and one that we can’t change. The media still champions their doom-and-gloom hysteria but now that it’s apparent we aren’t warming they have had to come up with something new and are beginning to claim that CO2 is “acidifying oceans”, another huge scam, but it’s clearly not working as intended. Even Al Gore’s $300 million advertising campaign to push his anti-carbon campaign (and increase his carbon credit profits) on the public hasn’t worked. People are not as dumb as Gore and Greenpeace once thought, just like people weren’t dumb and ultimately didn’t fall for all the “global cooling” propaganda of the 1970’s.
This latest report is just one of many polls done over the last few months which all say the same thing: Unnatural climate change is a total scam and ranks at the very bottom of people’s priority lists. Sanity is clearly prevailing for a change, and this poll fits right in line with the overwhelming scientific opinion that man-made climate change simply does not exist and never has. As anyone who does their own research knows, there are far more scientists who do not agree with Al Gore’s theory compared to those few government-funded pseudo-scientists who support it. Consensus? What consensus? Give me a break. The climate change hoax and the fraudulent IPCC are finally being realized for what they are by the majority of ordinary citizens, as well as the majority of scientists. As we all know, only 26 IPCC members authored and approved their last scary report, and none of the UN scientists were asked if they agreed and many stated they did not agree. That’s called censorship, not science.
In contrast, all 31,000 of the scientists who signed this statement against the IPCC and Al Gore have agreed with every single word of the petition, which clearly states the global warming theory is totally flawed. That one petition is about 29,000 more scientists than the IPCC even has on their payroll! And there are many other petitions all stating the same thing. And let’s not forget that just recently over 700 more scientists publicly spoke out against Al Gore’s claims at the US Senate.
The idea that humans cause any type of global climate change and that a harmless trace gas like CO2 even could cause climate change is now only a myth and a religion held by anti-human environmentalists and population reduction advocates who either WANT to desperately believe it or simply want the people to believe it to further their agendas. No wonder the media reporting and greens have gotten more extreme these days. They have to shout louder and louder when they have no science on their side and the Earth continues to cool while ice caps and glaciers continue to grow around the world. In fact, as of March 2009 the ice concentration and thickness in Antarctica is more than 40% larger compared to 30 years ago, yet all you hear about on the news is that a tiny 7% portion of Arctic ice melted away (just like every spring at this time). Run for the hills!
Politicians and enviro cults who support and push the global warming theory have to become more extreme and ignore all the scientists and the petitions because, after all, with the planet still cooling and destined to keep cooling for many years according to most meteorologists and climatologists, the window of opportunity to tax carbon emissions is shrinking. Cha-ching!It’s very encouraging to see that people are waking up to this hoax en masse. The notion of taxing carbon — the basis of all life and a vital plant food — has got to be one of the stupidest ideas in human history…but then again, it’s all about the money, eh? That’s quite a convenient truth, I’d say.As one commentator put it, spending money on man-made global warming makes as much sense as sacrificing virgins to a volcano to ensure good crops. Furthermore, mankinds influence on the climate is about as significant as someone sneezing in a hurricane.
justin [at]

EPA doesn't ♥ CO2: Time to make our voices heard

By Justin C, ILCD editor

In a landmark decision long pushed for by some environmentalists and money-hungry politicians, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has almost officially declared CO2 — AKA plant food, the air you exhale, the bubbles in beer, and the basis of all life — a “pollutant”.

As the Earth continues to cool and the rest of the world has begun to realize that CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a climate driver, the EPA and the Obama administration continue to push the hoax of the century on an increasingly skeptical public. It seems as though Al Gore and the lobbyists are also ramping up their campaigns against science and reason in light of the fact that more and more people are waking up to the reality of this scam.

If the EPA succeeds in its proposed finding, this will in effect give the government the LEGAL ABILITY to tax and severely control nearly everything in our lives, ranging from driving your car all the way to switching on a television, using a hairdryer, mowing your lawn, or heaven forbid burning a candle.

This EPA “finding” cannot be allowed. All the factual science has been thrown into the trash in favour of a fatally flawed ideology and completely unfounded fear of a hypothetical human-caused climate change which is not happening, and we will all pay dearly for it.

In fact, millions of people in the third world will pay with their lives for this outrageous way of thinking, especially if this type of unscientific policy spreads around the world as many environmentalists are hoping for. Countless souls have already starved to death thanks to the nonsensical push for biofuels which has taken over food crops around the world. This madness must be stopped.

The EPA is taking comments from the public for 60 days before their decision is finalized, so PLEASE make your voices heard. Tell the legislators and politicians that we aren’t going to fall for it, and tell them to throw their junk science out the window along with this ridiculous idea that carbon is “pollution”. More and more honest politicians and unbiased (IE: non-government funded) scientists are speaking out daily but their voices are heavily suppressed and effectively silenced by Big Environment and socialist green agendas.

As Nancy J. Thorner writes:

“At a time when many Americans are being indoctrinated in a belief system based on a political agenda rather than science, it becomes the responsibility of those who have not drunk the global warming Kool-Aid to question and to confront those who are pushing global warming propaganda.

Proposed climate change legislation that seeks to limit coal, oil and nuclear as sources of energy must be opposed in mass by the American people, unless they view with fondness the horse and buggy days. Not to do so would mean a victory for global warming alarmists and their agenda.”

Please visit this link to submit your comments to the EPA. Do it now, and spread the word to everyone you know.

Steve Milloy at Green Hell Blog suggests that it is time for a Green Tea Party protest, and we agree. With thanks to, you can now get your very own bumper sticker to show your support!
justin [at]

Comments on the BC Carbon Tax Scam

By Justin Credible

Well now, look at that. Seems almost NOBODY is falling for the carbon scam anymore! Check out the comments from the Toronto Star editorial on the BC carbon tax election discussion:


i am really getting tired of david suzuki and his cult followers telling me how to live my life and why i should like being taxed to the point of why work. a tax is a tax no matter what and if the ndp win in bc and do away the tax all the better, by the way i am not an ndp supporter but i hate taxes. Submitted by jackson at 4:48 PM Wednesday, April 15 2009

Suggested viewing

I STRONGLY SUGGEST everyone watches the British Documentary ” The Great Global Warming Swindle. Submitted by Rebel at 4:27 PM Wednesday, April 15 2009 Don’t be fooled here..This is nothing more than the RICH and the Political Elites trying to control the lives of the common man..Millions of dollars are to be made trading Carbon credits and the RICH will get Richer and the poor will get poorer straddled by higher energy costs..Just 1 of Al Gores mansions uses more electricty than some small towns. The rich and Hollywood crowd will continue to have their mansions, limos and private jets, while we languish in the dark..It’s all about making money and ensuring the powerful keep their lifestyles at our expense.. THE OLD PHRASE LET THEM EAT CAKE COMES TO MIND. Submitted by Rebel at 4:25 PM Wednesday, April 15 2009
Gavin Schmidt and RealClimate are owned and funded by Envrinomental Media Services, a radical left wing political lobby group. Schmidt is also funded by the Goracle. 1935 is still the hottest temp on record, those you cited have all been debunked in And graph of average temps from 1998-2008 will show a drop in temps, even RealClimate has had no choice but to admit it. Solar scientists are saying that the sun has gone into a calmer stage and we are set for 20-30 years of cooling. Your list of supporting scientists is evaporating fast. Submitted by JRWakefield at 4:09 PM Wednesday, April 15 2009
There is no evidence at all for any of what you seem to think is because of AGW. Hell, the models prior to 1998 did not predict this past 10 years of cooling, only after the fact did they include that in their models and claimed they predicted all along. The list of scientists, including from the IPCC are coming forth and saying AGW is just not happening. Submitted by JRWakefield at 4:03 PM Wednesday, April 15 2009
Antarctic ice-caps explained . . . . . . . . . . . and from NASA . . Submitted by Quantum_Solace at 3:13 PM Wednesday, April 15 2009
I’m going to try posting again as the Star had issues with my most recent post. Basically what I said was leaders of the Green Movement, in particular Mr. Gore, live lavish lifestyles with huge mansions, and private jets. Mr. Gore also runs an environmental company wherein he buys carbon offsets to exempt his carbon footprint. Mr. Suzuki has five kids and travels around in a diesel spewing bus making money lecturing. Hallelujah! Praise the environment and donate more! Cheques and money orders accepted. Submitted by Wallhouse Wart at 2:05 PM Wednesday, April 15 2009

A Tax on Life

Any form of carbon tax is a tax on life, as we are carbon based life forms; all botanists know CO2 is the basis of all plant life and life in general. AGW is now old science, and science must change as new facts come to light. With record CO2 levels we have had a decade of declining temperatures, this should not be happening if CO2 is a significant temperature forcing factor !!! It is interesting that our Sun has had no sun spots for 7 months, something that hasn’t happened since the little ice age beginning about 1650. Submitted by Quantum_Solace at 1:29 PM Wednesday, April 15 2009

“Cap and Trade” proves “Climate Change” is a Hoax

How can a “scheme” (aka ponzi scheme) that increased Europe’s ghg emissions be taken seriously. Al Gore will make a mint brokering the tax collection and ghg emissions will increase. Do global governments think we’re stupid enough to believe they “are tackling a problem”. Give me a break. Submitted by Kelsey at 12:04 PM Wednesday, April 15 2009
Any new tax right now, especially one like the hated carbon tax that hits the middle class very hard, is high risk to further damage the economy. The current recession has clarified the thinking of the public; they would prefer to have a job rather than seeing politically correct tinkering with the tax system by enforcing a concept based on pseudo science propagated by unemployeed tree huggers. By the way, three years ago, the same politically correct were also predicting the end of snow in Toronto due to global warming. I guess the last two hard winters were just an illusion! Submitted by Marching On at 10:43 AM Wednesday, April 15 2009 A Carbon tax does NOTHING for the environment. Did you know that when each one of us exhales, 40% of what we exhale is Carbon dioxide? Compare that to the air which surrounds us – that contains only .03% Carbon dioxide. Do we have to pay a tax to exhale?? There is more stupidity behind a carbon tax than any other tax. In a decade from now, we will look back and realize our fear of carbon dioxide was the most ridiculous thing in the history of humans. Submitted by aMacFan2 at 10:43 AM Wednesday, April 15 2009
Fact is people the planet has not warmed since 1998, 2008 was the coldest winter in 10 years. Climate models can’t predict anything and are nothing more than “what if” computer games. The planet is simply not behaving as the warmmongers predicted. The list of scientists who challenge AGW is growing into the hundreds. Get the facts,,, for starters. Example of 100 scientists who sent a letter to Obama: Submitted by JRWakefield at 9:45 AM Wednesday, April 15 2009If environmentalists and economists think for one second that a carbon tax, cap & trade or any other creative way of raising taxes will go to alternate energy, they are crazy. Think about it. Do you know of any dedicated tax that goes to it’s intended destination? Tire tax, McGuinty health tax, fishing & car license. They ALL go to general revenue and the government spends it from there. The goal of new energy taxes is to make it so expensive, we’ll stop using so much and reduce pollution. I’ll grab an enviromentalist to chop wood for my fire, wave a fan at me in a heat wave and feed my dog sled team. Submitted by sailor at 8:33 AM Wednesday, April 15 20091) there already is a carbon tax, look at those pic charts when next time you bill up yur car 2) there will be more carbon tax when Ontario harmonizes PST & GST 3) as if enacting Kyoto without China , India and other emerging coal fire polluters and would have had any impact other than increase the size of government and reduce my stnadard of living. As for the the NDP flip flops- they are politicains aren’t they ? i guess the only consistent voices are the Suziki/Gore environmental lunatic fringe and the Star Submitted by nolib at 7:20 AM Wednesday, April 15 2009Personally, I feel that we are going to discover that global warming has been the biggest hoax ever played on the world. Saying that, an article in Wired is also supporting a carbon tax period. Their reasons – it would eliminate three types of parasites such as marketers intent on cashing in on anything green, government bureaucrats bestowing indulgences on politicians for their friends, and the Wall Street crowd looking for the next big thing to scam us on. It’s no surprise that the biggest pushers for the Green Movement are heavily invested in green technology/consulting and publishing. Make no mistake, this is a big money making endeavor and those pushing it should be viewed by the general public with just as much suspicion as the oil industry. Submitted by Wallhouse Wart at 7:16 AM Wednesday, April 15 2009

Taxing air

Now they will tax the air we breathe. Submitted by McBain at 6:35 AM Wednesday, April 15 2009the carbon tax is a tax on everything and don’t believe any politican who tells you otherwise. It will cause inflation and eventually higher interest rates. The cap and trade scheme is an energy tax pure and simple. Of course the Star reports the comments of a columnist for the left wing New York Times as part of its support of the carbon tax. The U.S. is going through this discussion and there is not much support for a cap and trade system in the Congress. Mr. Obama’s environmental policy is being reworked at this every moment. Submitted by hollinm at 6:17 AM Wednesday, April 15 2009

This is getting funny

The only reason the B.C. N.D.P. is opposing the tax is because they smell victory over the B.C. liberals-this tax is a farce and they know it. The funniest part is watching Suzuki reacting to these turn-coats, his former left wing friends. Submitted by toady at 5:59 AM Wednesday, April 15 2009

Marc Morano's Climate Depot is now officially up and running

By Justin Credible

Marc Morano’s highly anticipated “climate and environmental clearinghouse” is now online and promises to be an outstanding source of valuable information, education, and news releases.

Congratulations Marc, we wish you all the best and pledge our full support.

Marc Morano is the executive editor and chief correspondent for, a global warming and eco-news center founded in 2009. Marc Morano served for three years as a senior advisor, speechwriter, and climate researcher for U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and managed the award-winning communication operations of the GOP side of the EPW Committee. Morano joined the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as the majority Communications Director in June 2006 after a decade and a half as a working journalist, documentary maker, radio talk show host, and national television correspondent. Morano’s Senate website won the coveted 2007 Gold Mouse Award for being the “Best of the Best.” The award was made possible by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and the National Science Foundation. Morano’s website got so many readers in January of 2007 that the volume shut down the entire Senate website, including every Senator’s personal websites. Morano spearheaded the 2007 groundbreaking report of 400-plus dissenting scientists and the follow-up 2008 report of 650-plus scientists dissenting from man-made global warming fears. Gallup polling organization essentially recognized the impact of the U.S. Senate EPW website in a May 29, 2008 analysis. “Republican spokespersons and conservative commentators have long challenged IPCC reports as reflecting the ‘scientific consensus’ on global warming by highlighting the views of a modest number of ‘skeptic’ or ‘contrarian’ scientists who question the IPCC conclusions.” Gallup concluded: “Growing skepticism about news coverage of global warming clearly goes hand in hand with Republicans’ declining belief that it is already occurring.” (LINK) Morano, who has spent years researching climate change, environmental, and energy issues, traveled to Greenland in 2007 to investigate global warming claims. As Senate staff, Morano also attended the United Nation’s climate eco-conferences held in Kenya, Indonesia, and Poland in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Morano has held both White House and Capitol Hill Press credentials and was a member of the Society of Professional Journalists. He has attended and reported on numerous international eco-conferences and the 2002 UN-sponsored Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. Morano was the investigative reporter for Cybercast News Service in Washington, DC. He has also served as a reporter/producer for the nationally syndicated television newsmagazine “American Investigator.” His reports have included an exposé on the Free Willy Keiko Foundation, an exclusive report on the safety of organic foods, and reports on the endangered species act and property rights. In 2000, his investigative television documentary “Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths” created an international firestorm. Morano served as the television reporter/producer for the nationally syndicated “Rush Limbaugh, the Television Show,” during the show’s four-year run (1992-1996). Morano, referred to by Mr. Limbaugh as “Our Man in Washington,” had the dubious distinction of being the first journalist in history to have his television camera seized at the Clinton White House while on assignment with the Limbaugh show. His reporting has made international news, including appearances and coverage on CNN, Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, BBC TV, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, US Weekly Magazine, web links from the Drudge Report, the entertainment show Extra TV, and Politically Incorrect w/ Bill Maher. Morano was born in Washington, DC, and grew up in McLean, VA. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at George Mason University. Contact: Marc Morano

Fighting the carbon scam is vitally important

By Justin Credible

Recently, I received a quick message from a dear friend of mine. The subject at hand was a curious question as to why I had a personal drive to voice my views on the CO2 scam, and more than likely, why I am investing the time and energy into online postings and obviously this website.

“re: CO2 fascination… was thinking…

I find too much attention on rebelling against something like this a choice that wastes our precious energy that could be put towards positive action in the world. Maybe helping someone:) I just think your keen insight and efforts could do some real good in the world. It hurts me to see such revelry in rebellious nature without some intention of bettering life. I am trying to see the point here… help?

I’m going to be very detailed in my response to this, in hopes that it will help this person, a fantastic human being whom I have utmost respect for, to gain a clear understanding of my motives and hopefully avail an open mind to the big picture here. In fact, I thought it would make an excellent piece for publication (name withheld, of course) so as to possibly create awareness for anyone else in the future who may come along and ask the same questions, so that is why I am posting this on the site.

First off, I’d like to mention that it’s been over three months since this blog went online, and there are many people to thank for the explosive growth and success of During the first month alone we managed to welcome just over 1,000 unique visitors to the site, and since then we have been linked and sourced to many other excellent webpages and climate realist blogs all around the world.

The hits have increased enormously. Emails and messages have been overwhelmingly encouraging and very supporting, with only the occasional enviro extremists attacking the premise of this site. As expected, they never attempt to debate the actual hard science of which we quote on a daily basis, largely because they cannot, but rather they simply resort to name calling and insist that human beings are “evil” and we must go back to the stone age to “save the planet” from their imagined climate crisis scenarios. As I have often said, their agendas are often not about environmentalism. It’s about anti-humanism. It’s about furthering their ideologies, and reinforcing their twisted beliefs that humans aren’t a natural part of the planet, and that civilization and industrialization is somehow “not supposed to happen” and is “unnatural”.

My answer to them is…well, what the hell are you smoking? Thus we come to the point of my motivation, this website and it’s message.

This ideology that many greens cling to so strongly just baffles me to no end. The idea that we exist solely to live in trees and should all be frolicking in the forests and using leaves to wipe our butts is absurdity in its highest form! (Yes, you can quote me on that)

Human beings have come a long way. Our journey has been full of ups and downs, but overall has resulted in great knowledge, understandings, and advancements. From that knowledge we have pushed ahead and evolved, our lives are far richer, healthier and most of all much longer. In fact, if we were still living in caves we’d be considered old agers by 25 or 30.

We now have modern technologies, medicines, transportation, and a far better understanding of the rest of the world and its people. Most of this progress is thanks to the industrial age and the fuels we burn to make it all possible. These fuels were given to us by Mother Earth, there is nothing “unnatural” about them. In fact, everything we create comes from Mother Earth. Your food, your house, your car, your computer. Everything.

Recently, a Greenpeace statement really struck a chord with me as it goes to show just how many so-called environmentalists view human beings as a whole. The statement basically said “Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions come from both natural and human sources.”

You see, right there, the very claim that CO2 is “unnatural” is unnerving in every way. It is one of the most relevant and necessary natural gases in the world. Or to claim that HUMAN-PRODUCED CO2 is unnatural puts the nail in the coffin even further. Are they attempting to convey the idea (ideology) that human beings are unnatural?

In a nutshell, yep. This disturbing religion has become the norm for so many misguided people nowadays. And it’s spread to the media, politicians, and heavily funded green organizations who have many agendas which mostly rely on making you, the people, feel “guilty” for existing and living a comfortable life. What a load of rubbish!

Take a look around you. Everywhere you are bombarded with messages telling you how you’re supposedly destroying the planet. What most people don’t see or even realize, however, is how much money is being made on this hysteria, and more importantly how many people are suffering and have died because of the green campaigns. The profits are enormous, and the legislation and taxes are coming fast and furious. Here’s a quick list of a few notable past fallacies:

– The environmentalist push to replace incandescant bulbs
Turns out CFC bulbs are mini toxic waste dumps.

– The environmentalist push to ban DDT
This has resulted in tens of millions of deaths.

– The environmentalist push to ban chlorine
Come on Greenpeace, you’ve GOT to be kidding me. Thank god this one didn’t fly.

– The environmentalist claim to ban CFC’s to save the ozone layer
Turns out even that may be misguided “science”. Heh.

– The environmentalist claims of “overpopulation”
Ha! We’ve barely even scratched the surface and there’s lots of room left. Besides, population is levelling off now. The same groups who began promoting the global warming hoax (The Club of Rome, the UN) were also behind the population scare in past decades.

– The recent nutty pop culture fad of mythical “sustainability” and a need to “conserve energy”
Sorry, but that one was concieved by population reduction advocates and extremists, including the same Club of Rome, the UN, and Big Green, all once again the anti-human camps. I’ve never bought into that sustainability myth for even a second. There are massive oil reservoirs we haven’t even tapped yet which could sustain us for hundreds of years thus allowing us to further develop and progress into new technologies for the future, but greenies are blocking all attempts to get this oil. And when I say future technologies, I don’t mean those bird-killing windmills, fairyland solar panels in the north, and biofuel crops which have taken over existing crops and are raising the price of food around the world and causing even more starvation. (Every time I see a sticker that says “Powered by biodiesel” I always wonder how many people have starved to death for that corn-fantasy fuel, which by the way not only destroys crops but also ends up producing more of that “evil” CO2 than traditional fuels)

But none of that matters, because it’s not about the environment for these campaigners, it’s simply the anti-civilization, anti-progress mentality that has taken over. They don’t accept that humans are part of the environment, in whatever way we evolve and develop, and they don’t accept that true unsustainability would soon be realized if we stopped burning fuels.

The Green Legacy continues – The gift that keeps on killing.

As Bruce Walker at American Thinker said:

“The consequences of politically correct pseudo-science always are absolutely ghastly. Rachel Carson in Silent Spring persuaded Americans that DTT would wipe out birds and decimate nature. She was absolutely wrong, but her pseudo-science was accepted by the Left as holy writ. DDT was banned and tens of millions of poor people suffered and died because of her propaganda. Sterilization of inferior races was once politically correct science, and that led directly to one of the greatest evils in human history. Politically correct but scientifically silly theories of manmade global warming are threatening to impoverish us with draconian restrictions.”

Which brings us to today’s prophet profit of doom, Al gore, and the unfounded claim that CO2 (carbon dioxide) emitting from our burning of fuels is going to cause climate changes or global warming.

As well documented on this site and many others, including peer-reviewed scientific papers from countless sources, the science says that is simply not true at all, and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a politically-driven UN organization which ignores most of the relevant science and scientists, as do the media. Many IPCC scientists have resigned over this very issue.

The earth is actually cooling, and while extreme weather and summer ice melts are a constant media wet dream, the fact is violent weather has actually decreased over the last century, polar ice caps are larger than they were 40 years ago, and to put the icing on the cake the science also says that more CO2 equals more life! CO2 is a plant food, a nutrient, and the more we produce means faster growing forests and food crops all around the world, which is essential to a growing population. It is NOT pollution. This is an absolutely wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution, and it goes to show just how well mother nature balances everything out. It also goes to show just how natural we really are.

The earth put fuel there, we simply used it and released life-giving carbon into the atmosphere which benefits all living things. To claim that it’s “unnatural” or we’re “not supposed to” doesn’t make one shred of sense to me. In fact, NOT using it would seem a very backwards step in our evolution. It is wholly natural. And it not only benefits plant life, it greatly benefits our lives in every way. Furthermore, energy is abundant and cannot be “saved” for later. You either use it or you don’t. It’s still there. Turning your light switch off won’t save anything but a few cents on your electric bill. On that note, those who participate in propaganda events such as Earth Hour should really click here and take note of the ideology they’re supporting.

Another reality check: Currently our atmospheric CO2 concentration is only at about 385ppm (part per million), and it is well documented that plants thrive much better at concentrations of 1,000ppm or higher. Just like back when many plants developed and the Earth’s atmosphere was far richer with carbon than it is today.

Even if we burned every fuel on the planet we would not come even close to levels of the past, but the very small percent of CO2 we do emit every year (only about 3% of total CO2 is from mankind), greatly benefits all life and further “greens” the entire planet. I bet you didn’t know that U.S. forest growth has increased approximately 40% in the last half-century, did you? You can thank CO2. Isn’t it ironic that the tree-huggers are trying to demonize the very life-giving gas that feeds their trees? I find it astronomically ironic, but not surprising.

The mission of many behind these eco-guilt campaigns is very clearly financially motivated, as the global warming industry now employs tens of thousands of people and involves tens of billions of dollars in funding. Soon that figure will become TRILLIONS with assinine carbon tax schemes and the like being pushed by Obama and Gore.

But let’s forget the politicians and the mega multinational corporations who are profiting off all this green hype for a second and remember, as I mentioned above, on the environmentalist side it seems many of these people simply want to get rid of cars, suburbs, and modern civilization. It has nothing to do with the CO2 science, obviously.

Thanks to a well orchestrated and well funded campaign by Big Environment, many politicians, state controlled mainstream media, the UN, and some of the world’s elite who have openly admitted this, we now have this imagined “crisis” and everyone is demanding “eco-friendly” paper shopping bags and stuffing their families into notoriously dangerous Toyota Prius golf carts. It’s absolute insanity.

They say the only way to avert this crisis in western countries is to open your wallet and give up your freedoms, revert back to the stone age, and ignore the hundreds of millions of people who will die in the third world because these agendas are seeking to shut down development in those countries, denying them the right to burn mother natures fuels in their own nations and thus denying them the right to DEVELOP, industrialize, feed their population, and advance. Of course, if environmentalists really are anti-human, then I guess it wouldn’t matter, would it?

Please, prove me wrong. I’m desperate to be wrong. But sadly, I believe I’m far too correct.

On that note, I am not a scientist, nor an expert. However, I am a rational thinker and can see right through this global hoax like a squeaky clean window. I’ve been saying it for years now, and with the power of the internet and a current mass awakening of people realizing this obvious truth taking place, I feel it’s absolutely necessary to intensify this effort, right now.

I am just a messenger, this site a voice of reason, a channel to further spread awareness from those real experts who don’t have the backing of Big Environment and Hollywood. We will continue to debunk the alarmist rhetoric and create awareness. Thanks to the incredible support from scientists who have contacted me personally, and the brave people such as these 31,000 scientists, these 700 scientists, these 115 scientists, this institute, this institute, this institute, this institute, and all these blogs and organizations popping up all over the place, the tipping point is near.

In particular, I want to extend a special thanks to our friends and scientists at sites and newsblogs such as ClimateRealists, CO2Science, GlobalWarmingHoax, SEPP, ICECAP, NothingToDoWithCO2, ClimateChangeFraud, WarningSigns, JoanneNova, ACM, TomNelson, and many others along with all our readers. Science will ultimately prevail over science fiction. Let’s just hope it happens before we’re condemned to living in caves without the right to light a fire, or paying through the nose for permits to do so.

In conclusion to you, my dearest friend, it should be fairly obvious that I am trying to help someone. I’m trying to help 6.5 billion someones, to better their lives, and more importantly I’m trying to ensure over a third of them enjoy their right to develop, to live, to exist. It’s disgusting to me that there are forces out there who would keep the developing nations walking barefoot through extreme poverty, and do so claiming it’s all to “save the world” from a problem that does not even exist.

Many of the advocates freely admit they would like to see human population largely reduced. Now, if only these environmentalists and politicians would focus their energy on real problems, such as deforestation, extreme poverty, nuclear weapons, etc, then maybe they wouldn’t be looking quite so tainted. But oh wait, there’s no money to be made fighting any of those problems. Just like there’s no money to be made on regulating the real drivers of our climate and causes of all global warming, because how do you tax the Sun? The clouds? Water vapour? You can’t.

I cannot think of a better way to expend my energy than fighting this baseless eco-religion, and as I take every deep breath, I thank the plants for the oxygen, and in turn I thank the carbon dioxide which enabled those plants to grow.

Oh, and by the way, turns out those plastic bags aren’t worse for the environment after all. No kidding.

PS: I highly advise everyone to check out the new site from Marc Morano. He is former Communications Director for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and senior aide, speechwriter, and climate researcher for Senator James Inhofe, and will become the executive editor and chief correspondent for, a pioneering climate and eco-news center. The site will be a special project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) with the goal of becoming the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy.

Comments on this posting are encouraged!

BREAKING NEWS: 100 plus scientists rebuke Obama as 'simply incorrect' on global warming

Posted by Justin Credible
Statement from CATO today: ‘Climate Change: Mr. President, We Disagree’

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008

With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true.

We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.

  • Yun Akusofu, Ph.D University Of Alaska
  • Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
  • Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D Anderson Materials Evaluation
  • J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
  • Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
  • Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
  • Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
  • David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
  • John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
  • Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
  • Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
  • Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
  • John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
  • Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
  • Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
  • Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
  • Roger Cohen, Ph.D Fellow, American Physical Society
  • Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
  • Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
  • Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
  • Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D Past-President, Italian Geological Society
  • Susan Crockford, Ph.D University Of Victoria
  • Joseph S. D’aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
  • James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
  • David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
  • Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
  • David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
  • Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
  • Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
  • John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
  • Upon Tyne (retired)
  • Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
  • Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
  • Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
  • Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
  • Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
  • Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
  • Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
  • Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
  • James Goodridge, California State Climatologist (retired)
  • Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
  • Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
  • William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
  • Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
  • Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
  • Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
  • Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut (emeritus)
  • Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona (emeritus)
  • Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy (retired)
  • Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
  • Bernd Huettner, Ph.D
  • Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
  • A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
  • Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
  • Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
  • Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
  • Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
  • Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University (emeritus)
  • Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm (emeritus)
  • Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia (emeritus)
  • David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
  • Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
  • Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
  • Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
  • Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
  • James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
  • Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
  • Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
  • Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
  • Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
  • James F. Lea, Ph.D
  • Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
  • Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
  • David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
  • Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
  • Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
  • Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
  • Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
  • Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
  • Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
  • Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
  • James A Marusek, U.S. Navy (retired)
  • Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
  • Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
  • Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
  • Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
  • Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
  • Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University (emeritus)
  • Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University (emeritus)
  • David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
  • Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
  • Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
  • Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
  • Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
  • Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
  • Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
  • John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
  • Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
  • Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop’s University (emeritus)
  • Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
  • Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
  • Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
  • Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
  • Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
  • Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
  • George H. Taylor,MS, Applied Climate Services
  • Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata (Argentina)
  • Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D
  • Dr. Anton Uriarte,Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
  • Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
  • Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg (emeritus)
  • Gerd-Rainer Weber,Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
  • Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
  • Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
  • Miklos Zagoni,Ph.D Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
  • Antonio Zichichi,Ph.D President, World Federation Of Scientists

See the full-page newspaper ad HERE

1. Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
2. Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at
3. Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
4. Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.

Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter.

STOP GLOBAL WHINING! – Site Promo Video Now Online

By Justin Credible

UPDATE: March 26, 2009

Well, the response to the original video has been amazing, it has now been linked to dozens of excellent websites. Here’s the full ten minute version using various footage and a few great music clips mashed in for good measure. Putting that all together, this video presents the global climate change hoax using a combination of visuals, humour, music and emotion to get some serious points across. I hope you enjoy.

Shorter original version:

Scientist tells Climate Change Committee: CO2 emissions have NO effect on climate

By Justin Credible

BREAKING NEWS in the land of climate reality, once again. Below is an excerpt from a report submitted by our contributor Hans Schreuder to the NI Climate Change Committee on February 17, 2009.

This document is valuable information for anyone interested in learning the undeniable CO2 truth and uncovering the hoax known as human-caused climate change. Hans is a retired Analytical Chemist and the founder of, a site which shares a very similar name and very similar views to this one. For a wealth of educational information please visit his site, and check back often as it is updated frequently with breaking news. Now, in an effort to get the word out to even more people we are combining forces and sharing resources.


“Despite much rhetoric and research over the past two decades, there is still not a single piece of actual evidence that the now-maligned carbon dioxide molecule causes global warming (or “climate change”).

To over 40,000 fellow scientists from around the world and to myself this is no surprise, for no such evidence can ever be found.”


“Climate change is far beyond the realm of humans to control and nothing humans do will change the climate from its natural and cyclical behaviour, which right now appears to be heading towards a lengthy period of colder winters and shorter growing seasons.

Carbon dioxide does not have any influence over the climate. Despite billions of dollars spent on research, not one single piece of actual observational evidence has ever been presented to categorically indicate that it does. This is because no such evidence exists.”


Biofuels and Hybrids: Two Green Dreams, Actually Terrible For The Environment

By Justin Credible
It seems there is no end in sight to the ever growing list of blunders promoted by well-funded Big Environment these days, ranging from yesteryears fraudulent Silent Spring propaganda banning DDT and causing millions of unnecessary deaths, promoting mistaken claims that the ice caps are shrinking, the recent oxygen depletion scare, and the past misguided promotion of green toxic CFL lightbulbs which led to their eventual mandated legislation in some countries. Of course, the biggest hoax, anthropogenic global warming, is still touted as a fact even though it’s merely a political myth and is the main driver of all these smaller sub-hoaxes. Yet, the man-made climate change propaganda campaign steams on, powered by Gorezilla and Obamania, although there is still a complete lack of scientific evidence to support the greenies absurd CO2-is-evil theory, plus an ever growing backlash of worldwide scientists who refute these alarmist claims and are aware of the fact the planet has been cooling for over a decade now and extreme weather is decreasing.

One of the latest agendas endorsed and promoted by the enviro-religious everywhere is the “alternate vehicle power” campaigns, most notably biofuel and hybrid-electric cars. Too bad the greens got these two causes all backwards too.

Let’s begin with biofuel. As reported in the Ottawa Citizen here in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently announced a $1.5-billion, nine-year plan to make Canada a leader in biofuel production, regardless of the widespread concern about the so-called “green” energy boom, which is having a serious environmental impact around the globe as forests are leveled and farm land is set aside to grow biofuel crops. Once again, the third world will especially suffer under this system, much like all the other morally irresponsible policies designed to fight off an imaginary man-made climate change.

“In all cases, forestation of an equivalent area of land would sequester two to nine times more carbon over a 30-year period than the emissions avoided by the use of the biofuel,” says a report published in the journal Science by Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust and Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds. To put it simply, “the emissions cost of liquid biofuels exceeds that of fossil fuels.”

They note energy crops require an enormous amount of land: to replace just 10 per cent of gasoline and diesel fuel would require an estimated 43 per cent of crop land in the U.S. and 38 per cent of crop land in Europe. And clearing grasslands and forests to grow energy crops releases carbon stored in existing vegetation and soil and creates large up-front emissions that the report says would “outweigh the avoided emissions.”

Indeed, the global alarmists say they want to reduce CO2 emissions because they mistakingly believe CO2 causes global warming AKA climate change and have not yet come to accept that CO2 is actually a harmless trace gas and an invaluable plant food which sustains all life on Earth and has nothing to do with pollution or “climate change”. But just for fun, let’s put that annoying fact aside and play the green game and pretend that reducing CO2 is actually a good thing. Well, damnit, biodiesel does indeed emit less than one-quarter the carbon of regular diesel once it’s burned, however when production commences and the destruction of ecosystems in the developing countries where most biofuel crops are grown is factored in, many biofuels actually emit more carbon than does petroleum, as was also widely reported last year.

Furthermore, oil palms don’t absorb as much CO2 as the rainforest or peatlands they replace, palm oil can generate as much as 10 times more carbon than petroleum, according to the advocacy group Food First.

So, biofuels produce more CO2 than regular fuels. And they push starvation levels up! Oh snap! Now, while most respected scientists around the world understand that the Earth is currently CO2 impoverished and creating more of it is actually a GOOD THING, I’m sure many environmentalists are going to quietly back away from promoting their biofuel fantasy once they wake up to reality, if that ever happens.

But wait, says Bradley Doucet, there’s more!

“We are, by all accounts, in the midst of a global food crisis. “A wave of food-price inflation is moving through the world, leaving riots and shaken governments in its wake,” says an article in the April 19 edition of The Economist. In the last year, the price of corn has risen 50%, wheat 75%, and rice nearly 200% (see “The New Face of Hunger“). The president of the World Bank figures that 100 million people are in danger of being forced into poverty by the soaring cost of food. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with key development agencies in Switzerland at the end of April to discuss what to do about the problem.

The current crisis is not one of supply – there have been no massive, widespread harvest failures – but rather of demand. One might well imagine that as millions become richer in places like China and India, they are exerting upward pressure on food prices by eating more. In fact, though this is happening, it is happening only gradually. The high price of oil is also having an overall inflationary effect, as is the U.S. Federal Reserve’s loosening of the money supply in reaction to the subprime lending fiasco. But the real culprit behind the recent rapid upswing in food prices, according to The Economist, is “the sudden, voracious appetites of western biofuels programmes, which convert cereals into fuel.”

Diverting crops like corn to ethanol refineries increases the demand for corn, which raises the price of corn. This in turn causes some farmers to shift fields to corn production, and some consumers to substitute away from corn, both of which raise the prices of other staples. Jean Ziegler, an independent food expert at the UN, told the recent Swiss conference:

“biofuels, as they are produced at present, constitute ‘a crime against a large part of humanity.'”

He was not alone in singling out biofuels. Also at the conference, Céline Charvériat, Oxfam International’s deputy advocacy director, said that biofuels are “a major cause of increasing prices” and called on rich countries to end their biofuels mandates.

But if consumers in rich countries want biofuels, then that’s what they want, and markets will just have to adjust, right? Except that it’s not consumers who are choosing to use biofuels in a free market – it’s governments that are pushing biofuels on consumers with market-distorting mandates and subsidies. According to an article by Robert Bryce published in Slate in 2005, subsidizing ethanol “has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars during the last three decades, with little to show for it. It also shovels yet more federal cash on the single most subsidized crop in America, corn. Between 1995 and 2003, federal corn subsidies totaled $37.3 billion.” Things have only gone from bad to worse since then, as mandates and subsidies for ethanol have been ratcheted up dramatically.

Take away those subsidies, and even with the current high price of oil, nobody but the most fervent environmentalist is buying ethanol. Subsidies by their very nature take money from taxpayers and spend it on things the taxpayers would not have spent it on – either that, or they do nothing at all and are completely pointless. If ethanol is a way to address the imaginary global warming, replace dwindling oil supplies (even though there is no oil shortage whatsoever), or achieve energy independence, then people either value these goals highly enough to pay the difference at the pump or they don’t. Forcing those who don’t to act against their values through tax-funded subsidies is like burning money.

The truth is quite sad. Biofuels such as ethanol have become the trendy way for politicians and corporations to show they’re serious about finding alternative sources of energy and in the process slowing their manufactured ‘global warming crisis’. It’s a win-win for governments and alarmists alike. But all is clearly not as it seems. Biofuels, it turns out, are bad for people, bad for prosperity, and bad for the planet.

Come on people, wake up. Clear-cutting forests for biofuels is not only foolhardy, it’s downright disgusting. And, it effectively produces more of those “evil” CO2 emissions that the warmists claim it reduces. Strike one!


Oh heavens, where do I begin?! Unless you’ve been living under a rock and have brainlessly bought into the force-fed propaganda via the enviro cults and their green orthodoxy (cough), you would already know that hybrids (which run on combined electric and either gas or diesel) are incredibly detrimental to the environment to produce and ultimately create more CO2 than vehicles powered by just good ol’ internal combustion engines. What’s that you say? You weren’t aware of all this? Read on my friends.

Firstly, the additional materials used in the manufacture of hybrid cars, particularly the nickel used in the batteries, is actually enormously bad for the environment. Plus, it takes more combined energy to produce a Toyota Prius than to produce a Hummer. FACT, not fiction!

A little hybrid lesson: The Prius is powered by not just one, but two engines. Both a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. The Toyota “Synergy Drive” system, as they call it, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gasoline is consumed. As any physics professor can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving.

The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. Aside from the batteries, it seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right? Wrong. As Chris Demorro reported on The Recorder:

“You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius EPA rating down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.”

Okay, with that being said, let’s go back to point one: building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the “dead zone” around the plant to test their moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles!

As if I needed to make the point stronger, I will anyways. Did you know that a Hummer is on the road for an average of three times longer than a Prius? Exactly how is it environmentally responsible to have to buy three cars in the same time frame as one would have served? And before someone starts raving about how they save money on gas, just wait until it’s time to replace those multi-thousand-dollar toxic batteries every few years. You would’ve saved far more cash by sticking with gas!

HUMMER vs PRIUS: Download the Pacific Institute’s seven page re-analysis of “Dust to Dust”

What about 100% electric cars? Umm yeah….gotta plug those thirsty batteries in every night, and where’s that power coming from? That’s right: mostly coal. If hundreds of millions of electric vehicles needed to be recharged every day, the CO2 emissions feared so much would skyrocket. Oh, and good luck with those fairyland solar panels and bird-killing windmills being able to support that kind of demand.

It also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to point out that hundreds of pounds of giant batteries are necessary to briefly move an entire vehicle with passengers and subsequently the weight of said batteries, whilst a couple drops of gasoline will do the same thing. So, which one is really more efficient? I’m not saying the internal combustion engine can’t be improved — in fact it can be made much more efficient if necessary. Yes, big oil is probably against higher efficiency. Yes, big oil is gouging us at the pumps. No, the alternatives are not better. They are far worse.

Biofuels and hybrids? Just two more strikes against the hysteria-driven and increasingly illogical “green” movement.