That’s what my buddy asked me last July 4^th as we stood in the broiling sun with our placards and stars & stripes.  We were at a rally for the Conservative Society of America.  It was all new to us.  My second demonstration, having attended one in West Palm Beach on April 15^th.  I didn’t know what to expect at either demonstration.  All I knew about demonstrations was what I saw on TV news through the years.  In Florida, I was pleasantly surprised to find, with the exception that I didn’t own any property, that we were all pretty much alike.  Pleasantly surprised indeed.  By the time I returned home to Long Island, the reasons I demonstrated in Florida became more pronounced.  And so the hours in the broiling July sun.  I joined the Suffolk 912 Coalition as it was geographically closer to my home base.  But the contrast came when my co-conspirator asked me the same question in Riverhead at a freezing cold rally to demonstrate in front of the Aquarium against Tim Bishop, where he was having a fund-raiser.  “So what are we doing here???”  was the question asked through chattering teeth.  But the answer became more and more clear.  We were members of the Tea Party movement.  We were part of a historical phenomenon that would find its place in history for certain.  As I attend these outings I continue to be gratified to see wall-to-wall us.  I and my co-conspirators have been fortunate enough to attend demonstrations and marches in Washington, DC.  Recently on April 15^th, 2010.  But the best of all was September 12, 2009.  Aside from family occurrences that have shaped my life, that 9/12 demonstration was the most moving thing in which I had participated.  It was very moving to see how many people would come to express their desire to have our nation revert back to its original intent.  The enormity of the crowd has never been accurately reported.  Not by any news organization.  Only those who attended have any idea.  There is no doubt in my mind that there were many more than one-million people there that day.  And it wasn’t just the size of the crowd.  It was the civility.  It was the warmth and joy of being together in what was obviously a great cause.  I was not once concerned that there was anything to worry about despite the sea of humanity attending.  No one was worried that his pocket would be picked or that there would be any pushing, shoving or selfish act of any kind.  It was a great experience.  It helped to shape my attitude and the attitude of many others.  We know that we have a big job ahead of us.  We also know we’re not going to stop even after we have accomplished a great deal for there is so much to do to make things right again.  Now we have undertaken an even greater task, to get elected a person for congress that is clearly my choice.  The future is a little more vague now than it was before.  But that’s because we weren’t paying enough attention to it before.  One important thing must have occurred though.  My co-conspirator doesn’t ask me anymore, “So, what are we doing here?”  Now the whole world knows.

What exactly is an environmentalist you might ask? Unfortunately, you don’t ask. Nobody seems to ask. But still I provide an answer. An environmentalist is a person that thinks he or she is an environmentalist and therefore calls him or herself and environmentalist. That is all the qualification required. There are no environmentalist degrees given in colleges. There are no environmentalist professional societies. There are only self-described environmentalists. Name some environmentalists you know who are prominent in environmentalism. Al Gore comes to mind immediately. But he has no background in environmental science or technical fields of any type. You may say, “I know but that didn’t prevent him from inventing the Internet.” Well no Virginia, he didn’t invent the Internet. And no, he didn’t learn about climatology or meteorology or physical oceanography or chemistry or physics or mathematics or any other of the myriad sciences one must understand in order to conduct a meaningful conversation on the subject of global climate and the changes it is subjected to. The fact that you have never heard Mr. Gore debate the issue with anyone should be enough proof to establish that fact. When even slightly confronted by an interviewer he cuts off any debate by saying that man made global warming is just a fact and the debate is over. Only solutions should be on the agenda of any conversation according to Gore. The latest joke from the lips of the great environmentologist was spewed during a recent interview of his I heard on some “news” program as he promoted his latest horrible book that absolutely no one is buying. He stated that carbon dioxide contribution to global warming is a natural law of physics. This he attributes to the discovery in (I’m trying to recollect the year) 1837, by the scientist (I can’t remember who he asserted) Mr. X. The discovery was that carbon dioxide absorbs heat and so more of it in the atmosphere must, by all accounts, cause the atmosphere to warm. Well, here is some news for the great Dr. Gore, everything absorbs heat. Everything. If he would like to conduct an experiment to prove that, I suggest he find a nice warm sunny day, locate a sidewalk, or preferably an asphalt driveway. Strip from the waist down and take a seat. He will find, I am certain, that the pavement also absorbs heat. What a ridiculous argument. In fact, I am certain it would be found by any study that environmentalists, if listed in a catalog with biographies, would have the lowest percentage of scientifically trained people in any category. Again, who else is a famous environmentalist besides Mr. Gore. Robert Kennedy, Jr. comes to mind. Michael Moore, Barak Obama and, of course, Mr. Obama’s choice for Czar of Green Jobs, Van Jones. What a joke. When will people catch on? We’ve always had environmentalists, only they went by other names, i.e., snake oil salesmen, scammers, con-artists, grifters, etc. How have they gotten away with it this long? I’m afraid the answer is the same answer as can be given to many such questions, “the American press has forgotten its mandate and lets these charlatans slide by.” It has gotten to the point where that great scion of journalistic prominence Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes” said of his one sided reporting of global warming, “why should I have to introduce views opposed to man-made global warming, after all if I want to report on the holocaust I don’t have to find a denier to offer an opposing view.” So, you see, the press in their omniscience, can accept without question the ranting of such great scientists and Mr. Gore, Jeanine Garafalo, Rosy O’Donnell and Whoopie Goldberg. When the world ends, there will be a special place in hell for many journalists. They will know they are approaching it as they walk past the special places made for lawyers, politicians and members of Planned Parenthood. And, yes of course, environmentalists.

So What is Science Involvement in the Environment??

Hearing about all the scientists that agree that man-made global warming is a force of nature just like gravity, one would think there is a whole body of focused, scientific types whose souls, careers and every waking moment is devoted to the task of following what nature is doing and how man is affecting that which should be the providence only of nature. You’d be wrong. There is no science involved. There are a few groups of people that pretend to be scientific types with professorial appearances that once in a while find themselves in front of a TV camera, but not very often when one considers the relative importance of the proposition that the earth is being destroyed. Those involved in proving the man-made global warming hoax, which shall hereafter be referred to as MMGWH, are to a large extent, totally unemployable in any truly scientific endeavor. And, not so strangely, most of the public advocates for the theory of MMGWH are . . . . politicians. To illustrate, the closest thing to science capable of predicting the climate of the earth and the things that effect the changes to same would be meteorology. Now the study of meteorology is one of the most demanding disciplines in the world. The layman could never comprehend the depth of study of mathematics required to be a meteorologist or a physical oceanographer, which is a close parallel. The mathematic descriptions of the forces of nature that establish weather patterns and effects on the climate are unbelievably complex and only modern day computer technology made possible the advances in the science we have seen. And yet, with all the knowledge of advanced mathematics, physics and super computers, how often does the weatherman get tomorrow’s weather forecast correct? Don’t know if you keep score but by my reckoning, don’t buy the hotdogs for the picnic until the morning-of. This is not a slap at the meteorologist, it’s just a matter of fact that it is just too complicated to divine what the atmospheric effects that can be measured, will ultimately do to the weather. If you could see what is involved you would wonder how they get any forecast correctly.

The best tools available are mathematical models. There are so many variables and so many equations that have to be solved simultaneously that only high-speed computers can accomplish the calculations. But the models are not absolutely complete. They contain only the information and equations that the science has developed to this point in time. That’s why during hurricane season you will often see a meteorologist standing before a map and show about a dozen paths that a given hurricane might take. That’s because each mathematical model that is used comes up with a different solution. We know no better way. Well, all the “facts” that the environmentalists have been generating to prove their theories are derived from their models. We’ve learned a few things about these models in the past couple of years. First of all, their models, when allowed to produce results without tweaking, show that the earth is cooling, not heating up. How do we know this for certain? Well the recent disclosure of correspondence between these little devils proves that they have to put erroneous data into the models to make them yield the solutions they seek. Therefore, they were putting data from 40 years ago into the models of recent years in order to have the computer tell everyone that the earth is warming up when, in fact, it is not. It hasn’t warmed for the past decade. Satellite data has provided ample proof that there has been no warming of the planet since 1998 and before. As Big Al would say, an “inconvenient truth.” Until now, when confronted with data that showed the past few winters have been rather more colder than those of several years ago, we’re told by these scientific experts that their studies show that a lowering of the temperatures can be attributed to global warming as well. They tell the world that the ice formations in the Polar Regions are disappearing and will soon make oceanfront property in Toledo, Ohio. But, alas, again those pesky old satellites show that the ice in the polar ice caps has been increasing, not diminishing. Really inconvenient, guys. Similarly, the poor polar bear put on the endangered species list has increased in population almost 5 fold in the past few years. That sounds about endangered as corrupt politicians. Looks like we’ll never run out of either. Ah, the list goes on. But the Greenies forge on undaunted. You see, the whole thing is just another power grab, just as so many phony crises are. As Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a good crisis.

So, the models created and used by the environmentalists don’t work, or at least not when you use the data actually collected. Speaking of that, there was a study done and published in “Environment & Climate News,” a journal by the way, written, published and subscribed to by real engineers and environmental scientists (yes they do exist though the press won’t let you know or use them as references or resources). The study involved visiting and examining the data points used by the various members of the environmentalist science community. The survey showed that the majority of thermometers used to collect data were improperly designed and positioned. Many were located in or near asphalt pave parking areas and roads. A number of them were placed so that their readings were affected by nearby air conditioning units and restaurant vents. Anthony Watts, a broadcast meteorologist for many years published his findings in a report loaded with facts, figures, history and photos. One thing that can be said for certain about any computer model regardless of how well it may be written is: Garbage in-Garbage out. Another thing that is peculiar about the data that environmentalists like to use is the hundred-year-old thermometer readings used to show temperature trends. I have nothing against the people and scientists from the old days. But I’m just not certain that when they were reading their thermometers they were concerned about finding an increase of 0.7 degrees Celsius in the global atmosphere 100 years hence. Certainly not in a time when diphtheria victims were said to have died of a sore throat and stomach cancer was a very bad stomach ache. Well the point is, the MMGWH hysteria began with totally unreliable data and when reliable satellite data became available it showed that the earth’s atmosphere was not warming but was in fact stable and cooling a bit. The environmentalists accepted the disappearing ice formations as fact without accounting for how or where the information was created. As soon as people started looking to see how bad it really was, it was discovered that the ice was increasing.

When did all this hysteria begin? It’s hard to pinpoint exactly but there is a historical point where it started. You gotta be as old as Mr. Liberty to remember it, but in the early sixties the sky-is-falling scenario de jour was the exploding global population. It was to be a cataclysmic catastrophe (that may be a redundancy). Starvation of unimaginable proportions was certain to occur within the decade or so. Plants to produce synthetic fertilizers were springing up all along the Gulf Coast, Florida, the Far Western US, Japan and all throughout Europe. The media was in frenzy. Hollywood came up with horror movies like Soylent Green which were supposed to be accurately depicting what was in store for us in short order. Various means of sterilization and birth control were the topics around the dinner table. Made you feel like quitting your job and enjoying the countryside for the last few remaining years of existence. Big inconvenience. It never happened. There were fertilizer plants being dismantled and sold as scrap all over the world. But I digress. When that panic was shot down, the sky-is-falling crowd needed something else to use to get control of the economy, to hamper industry, to cause inflation, to bring our way of enjoying life and the benefits of our labor, it was the environment. And the first thing they decided to attack was the fuel industry by way of tetraethyl lead (TEL) in gasoline. After all, lead is a serious poison that attacks the nervous system. Having it in our motor fuel had to be one of man’s most egregious and greedy acts. Don’t study the situation, who can be so detestable as to debate that which doesn’t need to be debated. Get the lead out. This was one of Ted Kennedy’s big early combats. Studies showed that there was no indication of lead poisoning in humans in the most congested cities. Didn’t matter. There was no reason needed to put a ban on the TEL, members of congress and their minions spoke for the only reasonable among us. It created a real dilemma and the result we have been living with since is low octane fuels, a mixture of chemicals in the gas tank to boost performance, the complete decimation of a viable production industry and the shutting down of lead mining and production. A reasonably good explanation was published in the July 1972 edition of National Review Magazine.

So that’s when it started, who knows when it will end, but it has to be soon. These power grabbers are outlawing carbon dioxide. After that can oxygen and nitrogen be far behind?

PEER REVIEW, OH YEA??

You hear a lot about peer review these days. It is said that the cleansing of peer review validates all the publications that have been part of this great conspiracy of the “publish lies and made-up data.” Joke. The publishing they are talking about is the circulation of reports among the unemployables where they would comment to each other about the brilliance of their presentations. Suggestions are made by the readers of some inaccuracies that could be added to make the bologna sound more credible. (They’ve learned since not to send these suggestions by email) These articles were never presented in publications studied and commented on by meteorologists, climatologists, oceanographers, botanists, and on and on. They were not papers presented at true professional organizations or scientists that study and work with the parameters that disclose the nature of our environment. They call peer review the incestuous circulation of the same distortions of facts and fantasies of non-science among the members of environmentalist family. If any of the idiotic pap made it to a published book, the great outpouring of criticism by real scientists in the real world are never acknowledged or argued by the phonies. And, of course, the American press, complicit in the “closed-eyes approach” to journalism, never published challenges to the ridiculous ranting either.

Peer review? Don’t make me laugh. Real scientists present the findings of their studies at meetings of their professional disciplines. There it is subjected to the scrutiny of professionals. Those attending the meetings obtain copies of the papers to be presented well in advance of the meeting. After listening to the presentation, attendees grill the presenter to force verification of the information presented. This is not done to find fault with the findings of the researcher but rather to be certain that the findings were validly obtained because many of those in the audience would benefit or suffer in their own research because of the findings presented. The same goes for papers published in professional journals. Peer review involves the entire population of those in the profession absorbing, analyzing, dissecting, augmenting and criticizing the information presented. Does anyone thing Gore’s book received such review. Well, it has become the bible of the environmental movement. And the movie, a reenactment of the gospel according to Al (without an award winning performance by Charlton Heston but an Oscar for the perpetrator). So, peer review in the insanity is as insane as the rest of the garbage that makes up the environmentalist movement. Just another power grab folks. Ask anyone who knows.

I hope you find this interesting. I have more to share with you and will in future communications if you wish. In the meantime, I leave it to you to do just a little investigating on your own to verify what I’ve written. I won’t steer you to the information that is available as I want you to come to an unvarnished opinion on your own. I will not ever try to convince you of anything but would like you to come to your own conclusions.

Sincerely,

Mr. Liberty