OPINION/COMMENTARY

Is Tennessee Melting?

Anyone reading the latest Associated Press article in the Tennessean titled "State follows world with warmer temperatures" might be led to believe that our beautiful state is turning into one giant oven. The article, which claims that Tennessee cities are "hotter than normal," is based on information and statistics provided by a political organization based in Washington, D.C. So, yes, I was a bit skeptical when reading the findings. For starters, we must acknowledge that the organization providing the information, Clear the Air, has a mission. And that mission is to convince the masses that global warming does exist and that it is probably caused by people driving around in SUVs. The conclusion is formed by the organization before the stats are ever gathered. All that is left for Clear the Air to do is to find figures and use them in a way that makes their desired conclusion a statistical reality. Certainly, the stats used in the "study" are by no means falsified. They are factually correct. In fact, I used the same exact source for my research. But as the old saying goes: Statistics don't lie, statisticians do. And as far as this study goes, the statisticians are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The first thing I wondered is why the study only used figures from between 1961-1990 when figures were available from as early as 1871 and as late as 2004. If a point is to provide proof for long-term global heating patterns, it makes sense to include as much data as possible. It took only a little research to figure out why the study reduced their findings to a 40-year period. Though the organization studied many cities, I reduced my research to the city of Nashville. According to the study, the average 11-month temperature for Nashville in 2005 was 72.9 degrees, compared to a 71.5 average in the fairly limited study period of 1961-1990. This counts for a 1.4 degree jump in 2005, providing evidence that Nashville, according to the study, is indeed getting hotter. But why didn't Clear the Air include the 1950s in its study, or any other earlier decade for that matter? Simply put, the 1950s was just too hot of a decade and would have increased the average temperature of their study period, thus making the results proving drastic warming far less staggering. In fact, between 1952-1956 the average high temperature in Nashville was 73.9 degrees, making that 5-year span in the fifties 1 degree hotter than 2005 and 2.4 degrees hotter than the 1961-1990 period, all before "global warming" really started to kick in. Since then, no five-year period in Nashville has come even close to being as hot as that period some fifty years ago....

Senate Dems Put Enviros' Dollars Before National Security

When deep pocket environmental lobbyists say “jump,” politicians beholden to them respond “how high.” Nowhere was this more evident than in the Senate’s recent inability to pass a necessary military funding bill as long as it contained a provision that would have allowed oil and gas production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Access to oil is both an economic and a national security issue. Oil, the dominant source of energy for transportation, is also a feedstock for plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, lubricants and construction materials. And, as pointed out by Senator Ted Stevens during the debate over the 2005 military appropriations bill, the largest single user of petroleum products is the U.S. military. Thus, access to oil is critical to our military if it is to continue to carry out its mission of furthering America’s strategic interests at home and abroad. However, America can’t produce all the oil it needs domestically. This means that we rely on oil from countries with interests often hostile to our own. Allowing oil and gas production in ANWR won’t end this reliance but it would reduce it and thus make our country less vulnerable to either petro-blackmail or temporary disruptions in supply. Accordingly, the Senate’s action was stunning and irresponsible. When asked to choose between the irrational demands of environmental lobbyists and the well-being of the nation and the safety of its men and women in uniform, a minority in the Senate, the vast majority of them Democrats, chose the former....

Drilling for Jobs

When will greenies get it? The Editioral Board of USA Today does. George Will does. ANWR is no longer a tub-thumping environmental issue of a few years ago, or an oil supply issue as the industry insists. ANWR is an important jobs issue and natural gas issue. Despite all the recent good news about economic growth, the American Chemistry Council estimates roughly 100,000 job losses since 2000 and $50 billion in business due to this problem. The plastics industry also lost 150,000 jobs and $14.6 billion of economic activity between 2000 and 2002. The American fertilizer industry will have virtually vanished not to ever return by the end of the year. These job losses are not due to the over-hyped issue of outsourcing because of labor or healthcare expenses. The crisis involves the price of natural gas’s meteoric rise and our decreasing domestic supply of this vital energy source....

U.S. Animal-Rights Leader Addresses “Nonviolence” Conference, Yet Advocates Violence Toward People

Today the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit American NGO, criticized the International Nonviolence Conference for including U.S. animal-rights leader Ingrid Newkirk among its honored speakers on December 29 in Bethlehem. Newkirk has spent much of her career advocating violence against people who use animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and vital medical research. “Newkirk has always advocated violence against people with whom she disagrees,” said Center for Consumer Freedom Director of Research David Martosko. “Her appearance at a conference promoting nonviolent solutions threatens to cheapen the entire event.” Today the Center for Consumer Freedom sent organizers of the International Nonviolence Conference a list of things they should have known about Newkirk before inviting her to participate, including....

The New York Times Keeps Tabs On PETA

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) supporters sitting down to their Sunday New York Times this weekend would be forgiven for doing a double-take: The old Gray Lady aired some of PETA's dirty laundry. In a prominent "Week In Review" story, the Times explored PETA's complaints about FBI surveillance, which were recently publicized by the American Civil Liberties Union. While PETA calls it "harassment and very disturbing," the Center for Consumer Freedom told the Times that, given PETA's checkered history, it's completely justified. "These are certainly dangerous people," our Director of Research told the Times. "I'm not saying PETA people are bomb throwers, but they certainly encourage people who do." Other commentators are also dismissing PETA's misleading claim of FBI-instigated victimhood. The Weekly Standard reminds its readers this week that the animal rights movement "includes some violent groups and some apologists for terror," and singles out "Jerry Vlasak, a California physician and spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front -- a group funded by PETA in the past." Two months ago, Vlasak told a U.S. Senate committee that the murder of medical researchers is a "morally justifiable" animal-rights tactic, insisting that "these are not innocent lives."....