Tom McClintock on global warming

Citizens for the California Republic ^ | 10-18-2007 | Tom McClintock's

[RLM]

Speech was given on October 12, 2007 in Newport Beach.

You have extended me a very dangerous invitation tonight – to speak to a gathering of political conservatives on the day that Al Gore has received the Nobel Peace Prize for discovering that the earth’s climate is changing.

I’ve heard that he’s going to contribute half of his prize money to environmental causes and use the other half to pay his electricity bill. And anything left over will come in handy to help pay for the fleet of private jets that allow him to travel around the world to tell us that you and I need to ride our bikes to work.

You have to admit, there is a certain Helmslyesque quality to it all – “We don’t conserve – only the little people conserve.”

Of course, for those in the liberal elite who jet to environmental conferences in Gulfstream Fives and drive around in Hummers singing the praises of hybrids and bicycles, the Left now sells indulgences – you can actually calculate your sins on-line and they’ll gladly tell you how much money to send them (all major credit cards accepted) to assuage your conscience.

These indulgences will be used for such activities as planting more trees to absorb carbon dioxide. After all, young trees absorb an enormous amount of this “greenhouse gas” – far more than old trees. But isn’t replacing old-growth timber with young-growth timber what lumber companies used to do until the radical environmentalists shut them down?

They’ve also forbidden the clearance of flammable brush from around your home in areas like Lake Tahoe – that’s an affront to Mother Nature. You’re supposed to either let it burn – and your home along with it – or just let it sit and rot because those are the two best ways for Nature to release lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Apparently natural carbon dioxide is a good thing and man-made carbon dioxide is a bad thing.

That’s also why we’re supposed to do away with chemical fertilizer and replace it with natural compost, because replacing man-made greenhouse gases with natural greenhouse gases is the wave of the future.

So are electric cars and trains. But this also gets a little complicated, because there are only two ways of generating vast amounts of clean electricity: hydroelectricity and nuclear power. But there’s no faster way to send one of these Luddites into hysterics than to mention that inconvenient truth.

The politically correct replacement is solar energy – roughly 17 times more expensive than either nuclear power or hydroelectricity – meaning, of course around 17 times LESS electricity to run electric cars and trains.

Energy conservation, then, is the answer, which is why we’re being told only to use energy efficient fluorescent lights rather than the warm and fuzzy incandescent bulbs. But wait – didn’t we just ban the disposal of fluorescent lights with your trash because of the extreme environmental hazard they pose in our landfills?

So I approach the subject tonight with an admitted level of confusion as to what these people are thinking.

And I also approach it with a certain degree of trepidation. After all, at Al Gore’s rally to save the planet in New York in July, no less an authority than Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that those of us who still have some questions over their theories of man-made global warming are “liars,” “crooks,” “corporate toadies,” “flat-earthers” and then he made this remarkable statement: “This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors.”

Ah, the dispassionate language of science and reason.

In a speech in New York several months ago, our own governor called those who question the religion of global warming “fanatics” and vowed our political extinction.

I certainly don’t want to die a traitor’s death or be run out of town on a rail. So I want the record to be very clear: I believe that the earth’s climate is changing and that our planet is warming.

I actually figured that out in grade school in the 1960’s when our third grade class took a field trip to the Museum of Natural History and saw the panorama of dinosaurs tromping around the steamy swamps that are now part of Wyoming. They were right next to the exhibit of the Wooly Mammoths foraging on the glaciers that were also once the same part of Wyoming.

And I never got a Nobel Prize for that discovery. In fact, I later found out that my third grade teacher never even nominated me!

Then I got to high school in the 1970’s and learned from the Al Gores of the time that we foolish mortals were plunging ourselves into another ice age. All the scientists agreed.

By the way, you may have seen the Washington Times story a few weeks ago about the researcher who recently stumbled upon a lurid story in the Washington Post dated July 9, 1971. It included the scary headline: “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.”

The scientist based this on a scientific climate model developed by a young research associate named James Hansen. They warned that continued carbon emissions over the next ten years could trigger an unstoppable ice age.

This is the same James Hansen who is one of the gurus of the current global warming movement. And it is the same James Hansen who, just three months ago, published a paper claiming that continued carbon emissions over the next ten years could trigger a run-away greenhouse effect.

Let me begin by asking three inconvenient questions.

First, if global warming is caused by your SUV, why is it that we’re seeing global warming on every other body in the solar system? For the last six years, the Martian south polar ice cap has conspicuously receded. Pluto is warming – about two degrees Celsius over the past 14 years. Jupiter is showing dramatic climate change by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Even Neptune’s moon, Triton, has warmed five percent on the absolute temperature scale – the equivalent of a 22 degrees Fahrenheit increase on Earth – from 1989 to 1998.

If you have any doubt, just Google “Pluto Warming” or “Mars Warming” or whatever your favorite planet might be.

Meanwhile, solar radiation has increased a measurable .05 percent since the 1970’s.

Is it possible that as the sun gets slightly warmer, the planets do too?

This would be a little scary in its own right, except for the second inconvenient question: If global warming is being caused by your SUV, why is it that we have ample historical records of periods in our recent history when the planet’s temperature was warmer than it is today?

During the Medieval Warm Period, from about 900 to 1300 AD, we know that wine grapes were thriving in northern Britain and Newfoundland and that the temperature in Greenland was hot enough to support a prosperous agricultural economy for nearly 500 years.

That period was brought to an end by the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1300 until 1850. We know that during colonial times, Boston and New York Harbors routinely froze over in winter and during Elizabethan times, an annual Winter Festival was held ON TOP OF the Thames River, which froze solid every year.

And finally the third inconvenient question: If global warming is caused by YOUR SUV, why is it that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide always follow increases in global temperatures by several hundred years, indicating that CO2 is a byproduct of increasing temperatures – not a cause.

Is it possible that this is the reason Al Gore won’t debate the subject? You’ve seen the “Inconvenient Truth.” In it, he portrays himself as an indefatigable, lonely sentinel (who should have been President of course) wandering the planet trying desperately to awaken the world to the danger it faces. “I’ve given this speech a thousand times,” he says about a thousand times.

But according to the Chicago Sun Times this pious paragon of truth – who assures us he’s willing to go anywhere and talk to anybody to save us from our mortal folly – is strangely UNwilling to take up the Heartland Institute’s publicized offer to organize an international debate on the subject. The Institute has challenged our new Nobel Peace Prize laureate of the left to debate any one of three internationally recognized authorities who dispute his claims, and it’s willing to front all costs – at Oxford University, no less, and in a format of Gore’s own choosing.

After all, Gore’s new book extols the importance of science and reason in the public policy debate, so what better way to deliver the coup de grace to the “skeptics” than to expose their fallacies in front of an international audience?

And yet, Al Gore, who has given his speech “a thousand times,” won’t give it just once more in a forum where it might be questioned by a knowledgeable authority.

We’re told that the debate is over and that all scientists agree. Call this the Emperor’s New Clothes argument. But it’s simply not the case.

The ISI Web of Science is one of the most comprehensive collections of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the world. A recent survey of all papers on the subject of climate change that were published between 2004 and February of 2007 found that only SEVEN percent explicitly endorsed the position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming. SIX PERCENT explicitly rejected it and a majority of the remaining papers were neutral.

In fact, another directory of peer-reviewed scientific papers explicitly refuting the theory of human-induced catastrophic global warming lists over 500 leading climate scientists. The survey itself was conducted by a team that included Fred Singer, author of “Unstoppable Global Warming – EVERY 1,500 YEARS”, whose qualifications include being the founding director of the National Weather Satellite Service.

I believe it was Ogden Nash who wrote:

“The ass was born in March “The rains came in November “Such a flood as this, he said, “I scarcely can remember.”

But now I would like to address myself to a grim subject: the actual threat that global warming poses to our planet – and most specifically to California. And that threat is very real and it is devastating.

I speak specifically of the radical policies that the global warm-mongers are now enacting.

Last year, in the name of saving the planet from global warming, California adopted the most radically restrictive legislation anywhere in the nation, including AB 32, which requires a 25 percent reduction in man-made carbon dioxide emissions within 13 years.

To put this in perspective, we could junk every car in the state of California RIGHT NOW – and not meet this mandate.

Californians just approved $40 billion of bonds that California’s political leaders promised would be used for highways, dams, aqueducts and other capital improvements. They are desperately needed.

But at the same time, those same political leaders have imposed a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Now here’s the problem. Building highways, dams and aqueducts requires tremendous amounts of concrete, the principle ingredient of which is cement.

How is cement produced? It is produced by taking limestone and super-heating it into a molten state – it comes out the other side as a compound called clinker. Clinker is about 2/3 the weight of the original limestone. The missing 1/3 of that weight is carbon dioxide. And when you include the emissions required to superheat the limestone, it turns out that for every ton of cement, a TON of carbon dioxide is released. It’s the third biggest source of carbon dioxide in all human enterprise.

But now we have a law that specifically forbids us from doing so. That was the essence of the Jerry Brown lawsuits against new highway projects that were part of the summer budget impasse.

Citing AB 32, Brown argued that unless the counties could show how they would build highways without using earthmoving equipment or concrete – and that once built, that people would not drive automobiles on them – the only legal use of the funds would be to promote mass transit, transit villages – and I’m not making this up – pedestrian trails and bicycle paths.

So much for construction.

Agriculture is in big trouble, too.

You can start with nitrogen fertilizer, which is a critical component of all agricultural activity. Unfortunately, it produces large amounts of nitrous oxide, another so-called greenhouse gas that must be radically curtailed in California.

The wine industry is also in for a shock. Fermentation of wine occurs when a molecule of glucose in the grapes is converted into EQUAL PARTS of alcohol and Carbon Dioxide.

But the biggest agricultural impact is the administration’s mandate for heavily subsidized use of ethanol fuel. Ethanol is produced in exactly the same way as the alcohol in wine: the glucose in corn is converted into equal parts of ethyl alcohol and CARBON DIXOIDE.

Following AB 32, the governor’s appointees on the California Air Resources Board imposed a requirement that ALL gasoline sold in California within THREE YEARS, must be comprised of at least TEN PERCENT ethanol, doubling the current mandate.

Now think about this: an acre of corn produces about 350 gallons of ethanol. There are 15 billion gallons of gasoline used in California each year. In order to meet the ten percent requirement in three years, it means converting 4.3 million acres of farmland to ethanol production. Now that’s a lot of farmland, considering that we have a total of 11 million acres producing any kind of crops.

Current ethanol mandates are already producing serious shortages in other parts of the world, as farmland that had been producing food shifts to ethanol to chase hundreds of millions of dollars of government subsidies coming out of your pocket. There were riots in Mexico earlier this year in response to spiraling tortilla prices.

And we’re seeing this across the board – including commodities like milk and beef that are responding to increased prices for corn feed. And as you see your grocery prices rise as a result of this policy, just be glad you’re not in the Third World. Food is a relatively small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries.

So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, they’re right. They’re creating it.

While we’re on the general subject, you may have noted that Interstate Bakeries announced last month that they are completely withdrawing from the Southern California market – they are shutting down four bakeries, 17 distribution centers and 19 outlet stores – and throwing 1,300 employees out of work. They’re the makers of Wonder Bread, Roman Meal Bread, Home Pride and Baker’s Inn.

If you’re a fan of those breads, you’d better stock up now – they’ll be gone by the end of October.

They cited the high cost of doing business in California, but I believe had they stayed they would have faced an even thornier problem: bread is only bread because of the carbon dioxide produced by yeast. It’s the same chemical process we’ve been talking about, although in this case, the central ingredient IS the carbon dioxide. That pleasant smell of baking bread is the ethyl alcohol oxidizing as those gases are vented during baking.

Electricity prices are also taking a heavy hit. California already suffers the highest electricity prices in the continental United States, but that situation is about to worsen.

A companion measure to AB 32 was SB 1368 that prohibits the importation of electricity produced by coal – even state-of-the-art plants thousands of miles from California that meet all EPA requirements.

Truckee became the first victim of this law. Truckee was about to sign a 50-year contract for electricity produced by a new coal fired plant in Utah. They were forced to back off because of AB 1368. They just announced the new contracts to replace that lost power. Instead of paying $35 per megawatt hour, Truckee electricity consumers will now be paying $65 per megawatt hour.

It gets worse. Last month, the chairwoman of the Air Resources Board – which was given virtually unlimited power by AB 32 – announced that they will TRIPLE the number of AB 32 regulations this year.

The radical laws now in place in California are having a dramatic impact on energy production, agriculture, manufacturing, wine-making and construction, just to name a few sectors of our economy.

We are already seeing the economic impact in California.

Nationally, the unemployment rate is stable at 4.6 percent. Until last year, Californian’s unemployment rate tracked with the national figures, but since January – while the national rate has remained stable at about 4.6 percent, California’s unemployment rate has skyrocketed from 4.8 percent to 5.5 percent.

I was struck by the Governor’s speech to the United Nations last week. He said:

“Last year in California, we enacted groundbreaking greenhouse gas emission standards. “We enacted the world’s first low carbon fuel standard. “Do I believe California’s standards will solve global warming? No. “What we’re doing is changing the dynamic, preparing the way and encouraging the future...”

So even the individual most responsible for this economically catastrophic public policy ADMITS that it’s not going to solve global warming. He just wants to set an example.

I believe he is going to set an example, all right.

Responding to the enormous new burdens imposed on our economy, our state’s revenues have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. On June 30th, we closed the books on the biggest deficit in California’s history – more than $6 ½ billion.

We just got the first quarter revenue numbers for this new fiscal year. State revenues needed to grow TWICE as fast this year as they did last year to avert an even bigger deficit.

In the first quarter, though, our revenues are actually shrinking. Last year at this time, we had $1 ½ billion in the bank – we now have a bank overdraft of $7 ½ billion that’s being covered entirely by internal borrowing.

That’s a NINE BILLION DOLLAR DIFFERENCE. And that’s the measure of our actual year-over-year deficit spending.

Combined with the growing budget deficit projection for next year, we could be facing a two-year gap of $20 billion by May – and we don’t have the money to cover it.

There is one other thing that strikes me on this issue, and that is how puny is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human enterprise, compared to simple, natural processes.

The AB 32 mandate is to reduce man-made carbon dioxide emissions by 170 million metric tons per year. That’s what all this tremendous economic dislocation is about.

Now let me mention one other man-made source of carbon dioxide that they don’t count.

Every one of us in this room will produce about 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide today – by breathing. That’s over 800 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. If anyone brought a pocket calculator, pull it out and stay with me here.

There are 6.6 billion of us on this planet. That comes to 5.3 trillion pounds or 2.4 BILLION metric tons of carbon dioxide – simply through the process of human respiration. And that’s before you count up all the cats and rats and elephants.

So all of this economic dislocation is over a tiny fraction of natural carbon dioxide emissions.

The only good news I can offer is that perhaps we’re all wrong. Perhaps the unprecedented burden now imposed upon our commerce will produce a wave of new investment and innovation and environmental purity as the Governor has so loudly promised. Perhaps the unprecedented levels of deficit spending will send our economy into paroxysms of prosperity. Perhaps.

But there’s another possibility. There’s a possibility that we’re right, and that the inevitable economic realities of these outrageous regulations are already beginning to destroy California’s once-vibrant economy in a dark and miserable example of human folly.

And we must be prepared for that possibility. In normal times, citizens don’t pay a lot of attention to public policy, and that’s why democracies occasionally drift off course. But when a crisis approaches, that’s when you see democracy engage. One by one, citizens sense the approach of a common danger and they rise to the occasion. They focus – they look beyond the symbols and rhetoric – and they begin to make very good decisions. Political majorities can shift very quickly in such times. Polls can reverse themselves almost overnight in such times. And I believe that day is now rapidly approaching.

People ask me all the time: “What can I do?” And the only answer I can offer is the answer the great abolition leader Frederick Douglass offered to a young protégé. He said, “Agitate. Agitate. Agitate.”

We have greater tools with which to communicate with our fellow citizens than ever before. The Internet and talk radio have given us powerful new ways to organize and reach people. And we have something else that’s even more important: truth and common sense.

We have based our entire form of government on the assumption that when democracies engage, they make very good decisions. The radical policies now imposed on California are already beginning to impact the economy, and will have an increasingly negative effect as they proliferate in coming days. As the impact of these policies is felt, people will begin paying close attention to policy making and the policy makers responsible, and then they’ll begin exercising something that the majority of California’s public officials have so completely lacked: simple common sense.

And at that moment, we will see a new political awakening and a new political realignment in California, and before you know it, we’ll be living once again in Reagan Country.

[NicknamedBob]

Perhaps one day soon, refugees from economically dislocated California will come trudging to the border of ... oh, say Oklahoma, and they will be rejected.

Call it the “Wrath of Sour Grapes”.

[cogitator]

First, if global warming is caused by your SUV, why is it that we’re seeing global warming on every other body in the solar system? For the last six years, the Martian south polar ice cap has conspicuously receded. Pluto is warming – about two degrees Celsius over the past 14 years. Jupiter is showing dramatic climate change by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Even Neptune’s moon, Triton, has warmed five percent on the absolute temperature scale – the equivalent of a 22 degrees Fahrenheit increase on Earth – from 1989 to 1998.

I wish Mr. Mclintock could read points #2 and #5 in my profile, but I doubt he'd understand them.

[sand88]

The toilet bill, by Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, will phase in requirements by 2014 that will limit all new toilets to 1.3 gallons per flush instead of 1.6 gallons

These Stalinists truly must think they are God like. I wonder if someone in government did a study of how often the 1.6gal toilets are flushed more than once (in a use cycle)? I made it a point to ask many of my friends and family and almost all say they "flush more than once." (sorry about the subject matter be commented upon. These incessant intervention in the marketplace (our freedom to choose) is an assault on our Liberty.

[sand88]

I wish Mr. Mclintock could read points #2 and #5 in my profile, but I doubt he'd understand them.

He is probably too bright to ever read the frauds at realclimate and elsewhere. If the climate is warming it would be wise for man to "ADAPT" to the change. It is obvious you agree with the Stalinists that want to literally destroy the future of our children so they could play God. Al Gore and his freak followers are out to destroy our way of life. You and the other AGW fanatics will likely seem your dream of massive government intervention and destruction of way of life-- at the hands government. We can EASILY adapt to any change in climate due to the SUN! The frauds at realclimate and other AGW nazis organizations are doing great damage to real science. It is so very sad how governments around the world has politicized Science. I pray to God Almighty that flame of freedom will burn long enough that all the anti-human freaks who believe in AGW are shown to be the pathetic arrogant elitists fools they truly are. It is astounding to me that any rational human being believes man can alter the climate as the freaks at realclimate etc. state. If the Earth is warming it's NOT due to man. It's funny, but Greenland was MUCH warmer in the past and civilization survived. It is astounding the drumbeat to force panic. It is so anti-human and such an affront to anyone who believes in Liberty and trusts that man can and will adapt if not destroyed by Stalinists. Good night and enjoy your utterly depressing view over climate :)

[calcowgirl]

It is astounding to me that any rational human being believes man can alter the climate...

More astounding to me is the number of people who appear to willingly perpetuate the fraud.

[calcowgirl]

Brilliant? You're calling McClintock brilliant? Even after he called Pluto a planet ???

Gee... It was a "planet" for 70 years, until a year ago. It took the IAU 7 decades to decide to change the the definition of a "planet." So, if it takes McClintock a year to catch up with the latest buzzwords, so be it. And yes--he is brilliant.

[cogitator]

It is obvious you agree with the Stalinists that want to literally destroy the future of our children so they could play God.

I fail to see why pointing out one of Mr. Mclintock's scientific errors in this presentation makes me "agree with the Stalinists".

It is astounding to me that any rational human being believes man can alter the climate as the freaks at realclimate etc. state. If the Earth is warming it's NOT due to man.

It is likely equally astonishing to me that there are people who believe that the activities of 6.6 billion human beings, and the considerable alteration of ecosystems all over the Earth due to such activities, doesn't affect Earth's climate at all.

[Kellis91789]

McClintock and Swarzenegger provide a good object lesson for the current political season.

We made the mistake of choosing the “electable” candidate and got the liberal Swarzenegger instead of the conservative McClintock as our new governor after tossing out Gray Davis.

This is the same mistake people are now making in supporting liberals like Guiliani, Romney, or McCain rather than an actual conservative like Hunter.

[BlueDragon]

I was being sarcastic. Did you read the fine print?

[calcowgirl]

Oh... oops! My apologies!
I shouldn’t be posting that late.
I didn’t even see the fine print.

[BlueDragon]

You say, in part;

...It is likely equally astonishing to me that there are people who believe that the activities of 6.6 billion human beings, and the considerable alteration of ecosystems all over the Earth due to such activities, doesn't affect Earth's climate at all.

Then post a satellite photo of pollution over China. ok, fine...

But ---

"considerable alteration of ecosystems all over the Earth due to such activities."

????

Have we changed the "weather", over the U.S.? I know of one place, where the damming of a river, creating a series of lakes, are credited with the re-creation, refilling, expansion of another lake, downwind. I for one, call that change, beneficial.

Look up "Devil's Lake". The Native Americans local to the area called it 'Spirit Lake'.

[as an aside, I find the juxtaposition of the two names interesting, particularly when one also considers what these same, or other, related natives called the 'White Mountains', European-Americans named, 'The Black Hills']

What I find even more astonishing is there are millions of people in this country, that think choking off business here, with increasing "environmental" regulation is going to "fix" the problem, worldwide.

They say, "oh, but we have to be the leaders in this", while ignoring just how easy it is for the Chinese (and the like) to simply IGNORE our so-called "leadership", and just continue on selling to both us, and the rest of the world, heavy industry manufactured goods, with much, much less environmental regulation than we've had in place, in this nation, in ever increasing amounts, for the last forty years.

The ninnies here, think that more regulation HERE, is gonna clean it up, over THERE.

It simply won't...

We are already *pretty* clean, CO² wise. I could demonstrate it plainly enough, using satellite photos --- from a site called UCAR -- but they took those particular 1/4 year, representative compilation "photos" of CO² emission's, off-line.

I think they didn't want anyone to see what was so plain...namely, that China was and is a gross emitter, while the U.S., is NOT. The air masses leaving our nation, in CO² concentration, are very similar to when they ARRIVE. If anything, the air is a bit scrubbed, passing first over the Pacific Northwest, with all it's large trees...then, if gaining in CO² amounts, is no more, than when the air first arrived here, after being loaded up with carbon, over China, then leaving some the carbon behind, somewhere over the North Pacific, before it reached the North American Continent.

Without the U.S. imposing import tariffs, punishing "dirty" overseas manufacturing, while simultaneously rewarding clean (or at the least, reasonably cleaner) local manufacturing, why should they change a thing?.

Or perhaps a better question might be; HOW could a Chinese, or other foreign nation locale factory, go "green", if their competitors are not? Won't people, including those of us in the U.S., just buy the cheaper stuff?

With our cost of labor being higher, our costs of land being higher, or regulations being much more stringent, etc., how in the hell can we expect to do it, without some set of heavy industry/environmental tariffs, that could perhaps help enable us to;

• Rebuild this nations heavy manufacturing base
• Rebuild it cleaner, and greener

Whatever happens, we simply cannot be "the leaders", if all we do is wring our hands, get all worked up emotionally over how "bad" we are, then punish our own companies, while we continue to import goods made in filthy conditions, in such filthy ways, that the environment is made to become even filthier!

But THAT is precisely what is going on today.

And you, my freeper friend, are helping to make it that way. You do so when you talk about the "environment", in in-complete sentences...even as you post large, telling photos...

Get my drift, here?

Can you read between the lines?

[BlueDragon]

No problem... I like McClintock just fine. I enjoyed the article...

[cogitator]

CO₂

[BlueDragon]

Ok, fine.

Got anything else to say?

[cogitator]

Got anything else to say?

If natural resource exploitation is not figured in as part of the total costs of production, processes which generate a large amount of pollution will appear cheaper that those which don't.

Commentary: Polluting its way to inflation

"China is waking up to the need to normalize pollution costs. On May 15, the South China Morning Post reported that about 2,000 Hong Kong-owned factories operating in Southern China's Pearl River Delta face closure or relocation because of pollution or environmental hazards they pose."

[mc5cents]

Ping to bookmark

[TomasUSMC]

He should have been Gov.

[mc5cents]

“The ass was born in March “The rains came in November “Such a flood as this, he said, “I scarcely can remember.” - Ogden Nash

As Rush is wont to say, to most liberals history begins on the day they were born.

[mc5cents]

Call it the “Wrath of Sour Grapes”.

LOL!! Now that is funny. Very good.

[NicknamedBob]

For me, the really amusing part of my post, was the inversion of the roles of Oklahoma and California after the dust bowl days.

California turned back, or turned away, "Okies" who were looking for a fresh start. (They don't do that today for some reason ...)

Anyway, having the Okies return the favor seemed quaintly amusing to me.