Liberal Retardation - New Cars in California Must Display Global Warming Score
Monday, July 7th, 2008
OAKLAND, Calif. (Link) – California is making it mandatory for cars to be labeled with global warming scores, figures that take into account emissions from vehicle use and fuel production.
The law requiring the labels goes into effect at the start of next year for all 2009 model cars, though its expected the labels will be popping up on cars in the coming months.
The labeling law forces cars for sale to display a global warming score, on a scale of one to 10, which is based on how vehicles in the same model year compare to one another. The higher the score, the cleaner a car is. The score takes into account emissions related to production of fuel for each vehicle as well as the direct emissions from vehicles.
The score will be displayed next to the already-required smog score, which also rates cars one to 10 for how many smog-forming emissions they emit. For both scores, an average vehicle will have a score of five.
California is the first state of pass such as law, and a similar law will take effect in New York for 2010 model year vehicles. Global warming scores will be included on the state’s DriveClean website.
While this law is intended to help consumers take into account emissions while purchasing cars, a proposed law in the European Union would require E.U. public sector bodies put a price on emissions.
A law endorsed by the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety would make governments put a monetary cost on the emissions of vehicles they plan to purchase, and add that to expense calculations. The law would exclude certain types of vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks.
Proof that it’s easy to be top dumbass on You Tube, Just ask Harry Reid!
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t necessarily known as a multimedia sensation, but thanks to his “coal makes us sick” comment, Reid has rocketed to the top of YouTube.
The video below of Reid on Fox Business News now sits atop YouTube’s “most viewed” list, with nearly 215,000 views, thanks in large part to a link on the Drudge Report.
Global Warming Tax Scam - Tax means fewer travellers at main Dutch airport
Sunday, June 29th, 2008
(LINK) Some 50,000 fewer passengers are expected to use Amsterdam Schiphol airport, one of Europe’s busiest, this summer on account of a Dutch environmental tax on flights, it was reported Saturday.
“We’re expected zero growth in 2008, and in fact a decrease (in passenger numbers) in July and August,” an airport spokesman was quoted as saying by the domestic ANP news agency.
The Netherlands is the only country that levies an environmental tax on flights departing the country — 11.25 euros per passenger (17.75 dollars) for European destinations and 45 euros for intercontential points.
With higher fuel prices pushing up air fares worldwide, travel industry experts say the tax will hurt business at Schiphol and see many Dutch travellers go to nearby German airports instead.
“Saving the Planet” – The Ultimate Display of Human Arrogance
Friday, June 27th, 2008
I was having a conversation with a young lady on my DC trip who described herself as “a green person” and that she was concerned about the environment.
After some chatting about how we are “destroying the environment” I told her the next time you fly particularly over a large city as I did while in NYC process the fact that millions and millions of people live down there burning fuels, accumulating trash, creating their own little scar on this supposedly frail planet.
Take an aerial snapshot in your mind and process the fact that even if every square inch
of space you can see was occupied with a polluting vehicle, burning brush, trash, exhaust being expelled by everything from diesel trucks, businesses, lawn mowers, BBQ grills, heating devices, cooking surfaces whatever do you actually believe that the earth is not capable of cleansing itself.
Should we be good environmental neighbors, certainly.
Should we be environmentally conscious and protective of our waterways, our air and our surroundings, of course.
I then asked her if she was familiar with the recent Chaitén volcano a single major volcano eruption that put more “pollutants” into the air then all the humans that have ever lived on earth. It is the ultimate display of human arrogance and ignorance to think humankind has or even can make much of an impact on warming or cooling of the planet.
After looking at me as if I had my head on backwards she acknowledged that “well I never thought of it that way”
Duh, of course not. Another example of why liberal amuse me so much.
We’re so self-important. So self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these bleeping people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?
Perhaps you’ve been under a rock recently and didn’t hear the following quote by Gore Vidal.
“The president behaved like a virtual criminal but we didn’t have the courage to sack him for fear of violating the American Constitution. We live in a dictatorship. We have a fascist government… which controls the media.”
It is idiots like Gore Vidal that make America look bad to the rest of the world, not conservatives. But I’ll get back to that in a minute. First, let’s talk a little about just what Vidal has to hate about America.
Maybe it’s the fact that he can walk in to any supermarket in America on any day of the week and find more food than your average Ethiopian city.
Or maybe it’s the fact that you are free to attend any worship service you want, of any religion you desire, at any time. Or not attend. The choice is yours, and it’s guaranteed in our constitution.
If you wish to help defend this country, you are free to join any of the branches of service. If, on the other hand, you wish to live under the protection provided by the men and women who serve this nation, you don’t have to serve. Because we are an all voluntary military, unlike most countries in the world.
If you decide that you don’t agree with one of our elected officials, you are free to protest, write letters to the editor, or spout off your insanity to a news organization like old Gore Vidal did above. And here’s the best part, jack booted thugs are not going to show up at your home and drag you off in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Try that in Cuba. Or Venezuela. Or Zimbabwe. Or one of a dozen other utopian’s societies that are idolized by those on the left.
Americans ‘Have To’ Move Away From Oil, McCain Says
Wednesday, June 11th, 2008
I started to go on a long tirade about what McCain said in this interview and to explain again why I don’t want this man to be president AGAIN but I’m like fuck it. I’m just a middle aged Negro anonymous blogger with a few opinions that I share on occasion. Nobody care what a broke ass Middle American angry Negro has to say about a great American POW survivor war hero…faux Republican.
Although I know my request for insight, inspiration and wisdom will be pretty much ignored I will still humbly ask those of you who are more right leaning or those of you who still identify yourselves as Republican why should I support this idiot old bastard?
I’m thinking hell at least an Obama presidency will entertain me with dude slapping his wife in the ass before they board Air Force one or the shot of him with a 40 in one hand slapping down a double six screaming “biatch” while playing dominoes as he entertains his homies in the Oval Office.
Anywho just posting for those of you who care. *Sigh*
(CNSNews.com) - At a time when congressional Republicans are pressing for expanded domestic oil drilling to boost supply, Republican Sen. John McCain says the goal of his energy policy is to move Americans away from oil. He also said oil companies “absolutely” should be giving something back to the consumer.
Americans “have to” move away from oil, McCain said Wednesday, not only because of soaring gasoline prices, “but also because of greenhouse gas emissions.”
His energy plan says nothing about oil drilling. Instead, McCain is pushing for alternative forms of energy — especially an expansion of nuclear power.
“We have to embark on a national mission to become energy independent — and nuclear power has to play a big role in that,” he told NBC’s “Today” show on Wednesday.
Asked if there’s anything he or Sen. Obama could do to ease soaring gasoline prices, McCain said “We could give them (American consumers) a bit of a break for this summer.”
McCain says that suspending the federal gasoline tax (18.4 cents a gallon) between Memorial Day and Labor Day might help a little bit. He also says he would temporarily halt new oil infusions into the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
But between now and November, McCain said he doubts gasoline prices will go much lower than they are now — and they “could go higher.” The situation won’t get much better than it is now, given that a finite supply of oil is controlled by a cartel.
Oil company profits
At a time of record oil prices and record profits — when oil companies are getting various tax breaks and financial incentives from the federal government — shouldn’t those companies “be able to give something back to the consumer?” NBC’s Matt Lauer asked McCain. “Absolutely,” McCain replied.
“And they should be investing in alternative energy and they should be giving back to the consumer and they should be embarking on research and development that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” McCain said.
“The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits,” McCain said.
On Tuesday, Senate Republicans prevented a vote on a Democratic bill that would have imposed a 25 percent windfall profits tax on oil company profits. The motion to cut off debate and proceed to a vote failed by a 51-43 margin. Neither McCain nor Sen. Barack Obama cast a vote on the cloture motion.
But both presumed presidential candidates support a windfall profits tax.
Last month in North Carolina, McCain said, “I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere — and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax — that’s not what bothers me — but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.”
(LINK) The city of Seattle may ban bonfires on park beaches to help fight global warming.
The park staff is recommending a ban that will go before the park board at Thursday’s meeting. The staff says bonfire smoke adds to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The board could start restricting fires this summer, and a ban would take effect next year.
The parks department tried to ban beach fires in 2004 after receiving a violation notice from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. But 1,300 people signed petitions to save bonfires at Alki and Golden Gardens beaches.
The following is a memo sent out to City of Seattle employees. It has not been edited.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 9, 2007
TO: Employees at Civic Center Buildings
FROM:FFD Facility Operations Division
RE:Burnt Microwave Popcorn and Building Evacuations
At our Civic Center buildings we continue to see a high number of instances of employees burning microwave popcorn and triggering the building smoke alarms. This is a serious issue which requires Fire Department emergency response, building evacuation, and resetting of building systems. Each evacuation causes disruption to City services for at least 30-40 minutes and has considerable actual costs to the City. It also poses safety and security issues, especially at the Justice Center which includes jail facilities and active courtrooms.
In May, we had the most recent building evacuation at the Justice Center due to burnt microwave popcorn. This is the eighth time in less than three years that we had to evacuate 400+ persons from Justice Center due to burnt popcorn. We have also had multiple evacuations of 300+ persons at City Hall and Seattle Municipal Tower due to burnt popcorn.
If this problem continues, it will result in a ban of all microwave popcorn in downtown City buildings, as some other downtown buildings have done.
We would like your help in eliminating these alarms due to burnt microwave popcorn, so we dont have to ban it. Please read and follow package instructions. Stay by the microwave and listen to the pop, to know when to stop.
The Minneapolis City Council and Mayor R.T. Rybak approved changes Friday, to the city’s vehicle idling ordinance that aims to reduce air pollution. The ordinance limits most vehicle idling to three minutes, except in traffic.
“Most of the air pollution in Minneapolis comes from vehicles and cutting down in idling is one easy thing we can all do for our environment, our health, and the health of our neighbors,” said Mayor R.T. Rybak.
The PlanetSlayer site, which the network calls the “first irreverent environmental website,” includes “Professor Schpinkee’s greenhouse calculator,” which tells a user when he or she should die, based on their lifestyle and consumption of resources.
The “calculator” is made like a children’s video game, with cartoon characters who look like a detective dog and a pig, and asks, “How big a greenhouse pig are you?”
The user goes through a series of questions about how much one drives, is the vehicle fuel efficient, how many miles the person flew – divided by pleasure travel and business travel as if one would be more Earth-friendly than the other, and others.
Those responses are added to answers to questions about the size of your home, how many people live there, how big the utility bills are and does any of the energy come from a renewable resource, and queries about recycling.
Then you click on a skull-and-crossbones button to find out that you should die at 23.4 years, or 9.3, or 5.2, depending on your answers.
With the click on the skull-and-crossbones button, a pig representing the survey-taker, positioned between a fat pig for energy usage and a lean, “green” pig, explodes.
US Senator John Cornyn, representing the greatest State in the nation, has a news release posted at his official Senate website that is a must read for anyone that thinks this Cap and Trade nonsense is…well, nonsense. Titled “Climate Debate Must Be Mindful Of Unintended Consequences”, the good Senator from Texas shows that HE, at least, gets it regarding the problem(s) with the Democrat majority’s master plan to destroy the economy…err, I mean, save the planet:
The bill [S. 3036] appears to implement a $6.7 trillion program that could undermine economic growth, raise energy costs for American consumers and send jobs overseas to countries such as India and China. We need a thoughtful and serious debate on how to be the best stewards of the environment possible. As we do this, I hope Congress pays heed to the law of unintended consequences, including what impact it might have on the budgets of families in Texas and across the country.
At a time, when many working families are struggling with high gas prices, we must take steps to address this problem, and not add to it.
John McCain’s global-warming speech on Monday made it clear that there will be no presidential candidate this year willing to question the assertion that global warming (a.k.a. “climate change”) is manmade, or the assertion that we can fix global warming by passing a few laws.
Along with Clinton and Obama, McCain’s proposal to attack global warming now gives voters three choices for a car color — as long as it is black. Like Clinton and Obama, McCain’s proposal involves a “cap and trade” mechanism to legislatively limit CO2 emissions in the coming years, with the free market minimizing the economic damage by allowing a trading of emission credits between companies. He also includes an allowance for carbon offsets, although everyone (except Al Gore) believes this to be more smoke-and-mirrors than a real-world strategy for reducing carbon emissions.
What worries me is the widespread misperception that we can do anything substantial about carbon emissions without seriously compromising economic growth. To be sure, forcing a reduction in CO2 emissions will help spur investment in new energy technologies. But so does a price tag of $126 for a barrel of oil. Finding a replacement for carbon-based energy will require a huge investment of wealth, and destroying wealth is not a very good first step toward that goal.
When the public finds out how much any legislation that punishes energy use is going to cost them, with no guarantee that anything we do will have a measurable impact on future climate, there will be a revolt just like the one now materializing in the U.K. and the EU. At some point, as they are faced with the stark reality that mankind’s requirement for an abundant source of energy cannot simply be legislated out of existence, the public will begin asking, “Just how sure are we that humans are causing global warming?”
And this is where the science establishment has, in my view, betrayed the public’s trust.
Even though there has never been a single scientific paper published that has ruled out natural variability for most of the warming we’ve seen since 1850, Big Science has managed to convince politicians and much of the public that the science is settled. Apparently, our addition of nine molecules of carbon dioxide to each 100,000 molecules of air over the last 150 years can now be blamed for anything and everything we choose. Hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, floods, glaciers flowing toward the sea…. all of these used to happen naturally, but no more.
The warming that allowed the Vikings to farm in Greenland 1,000 years ago was surely natural. But we are now told that warming in Greenland today is surely manmade. Glaciers retreating in western Canada have revealed evidence of previous forests, showing that warming and cooling cycles do indeed occur, even without SUVs. Yet the SUV is now the scapegoat for retreating glaciers.
McCain pointed to shrinking Arctic sea ice and collapsing Antarctic ice shelves as obvious evidence that humans are to blame, even though the sea ice did the same thing in the 1920s and 1930s, and those ice shelves must break off eventually, as new glacial ice flows toward the sea to take their place.
But McCain has made it clear that the science really does not matter anyway because, even if humans are not to blame for global warming, stopping carbon-dioxide emissions is the right thing to do. And if we had another choice for most of our energy needs, I might be willing to accept such a claim as harmless enough.
But carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, and I have a difficult time calling something so fundamentally important a “pollutant.” Maybe the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than it has been in hundreds of thousands of years. So what? I am increasingly convinced that its influence on climate pales in comparison to the influence that natural climate events like El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have on regional climate. Indeed, most of the warming we’ve seen in the last century might well be due to these natural modes of climate variability alone.
The trouble is that no one has been funded by the government to investigate such a possibility, and the mandate for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to address manmade climate change — not natural climate change.
So, here we are with bad science ready to support bad policy decisions that will lead to bad economic times ahead, and no presidential candidate who is willing to ask the hard questions. While we hate to be pandered to by politicians, in this case I can only hope that they really are pandering — that this is hot air and not prospective policy.
Sen. John McCain really does want to tempt the Republican base. …We’ve gotten our hands on an advanced transcript of this weekend’s “The Chris Matthews Show” on NBC and the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Katty Kay offered this nugget during the show’s “Tell Me Something I Don’t Know” segment:
“John McCain is going to be doing more of these themed tours of America, and one of them is going to be on energy and global climate change. It could get him into trouble with Republicans, of course, and with the base, who don’t think there is much climate change going on, but it is something that he’s very passionate about and he’s going to be talking about it.”
“The cost of good intentions: Bio Fuel = high food prices”
Tuesday, April 29th, 2008
A key blunder was the ill-conceived response to high energy prices by promoting grain-based biofuels…
###
Food scientists say stop biofuels to fight world hunger
WASHINGTON (AP) — Some top international food scientists Tuesday recommended halting the use of food-based biofuels, such as ethanol, saying it would cut corn prices by 20 percent during a world food crisis.But even as the scientists were calling for a moratorium, President Bush urged the opposite. He declared the United States should increase ethanol use because of national energy security and high gas prices. - IDIOT!
The conflicting messages Tuesday highlighted the ongoing debate over food and fuel needs.
The three senior scientists with an international research consortium pushing a biofuel moratorium said nations need to rethink programs that divert food such as corn and soybeans into fuel, given the burgeoning worldwide food crisis. The group, CGIAR, is a global network that uses science to fight hunger. It is funded by dozens of countries and private foundations.
If leading nations stopped biofuel use this year, it would lead to a price decline in corn by about 20 percent and wheat by about 10 percent from 2009-10, said Joachim von Braun. He heads the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, the policy arm of CGIAR. The United States is the biggest biofuel producer.
He and the other scientists said work should be stepped up on the use of non-grain crops, such as switchgrass, for biofuel.
Another scientist, not associated with the group, agreed with their call for a halt on the use of grain for fuel.
“We need to feed the stomach before we need to feed our cars,” said Rattan Lal, an Ohio State University soil sciences professor who in the past has been a critic of some of CGIAR’s priorities. “We have 1 billion people who are food insecure. We can’t afford the luxury of not taking care of them and taking care of gasoline.”
How’s this for a double bind: Moonbat-imposed indoor smoking bans are said to exacerbate moonbats’ beloved global warming farce.
Fewer cigarettes get lit indoors in bars and restaurants because of smoking bans from California to Ireland but something else is going up in smoke from a sidewalk in central Oslo — about $100,000 a year in extra outdoor heating bills.
The heated pavement, installed at a cost of about $400,000, may be the most extreme example of an environmental side-effect of smoking bans: rocketing power use. […T]hink of all the thousands of extra gas and electricity heaters outdoors spurred by the smoking bans around the world…
If only global warming were real, soon we wouldn’t need outdoor heaters. Unfortunately higher power bills are real enough. Once again we see that for every heavy-handed moonbat action, there is a reaction of unintended consequences that leaves the world worse off.
EU Could Ban Outdoor Patio Heaters
The EU is moving to ban outdoor patio heaters, upsetting incense bar and restaurant owners. Environmentalists back the plan, arguing the heaters make a significant contribution to global warming.
(link) Many of you have written to me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by former Vice President Al Gore.I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.
But here’s what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that’s a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can’t have a slogan of “Just yell no!”
I have a different view. I think it’s important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we’re going to get the former. That’s why I took part in the ad.
It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” in order to generate global warming hysteria.
On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster “The Day After Tomorrow.”
Iwo Jima Veterans Blast Time’s ‘Special Environmental Issue’ Cover
Friday, April 18th, 2008
For only the second time in 85 years, Time magazine abandoned the traditional red border it uses on its cover. The occasion – to push more global warming alarmism.The cover of the April 21 issue of Time took the famous Iwo Jima photograph by Joe Rosenthal of the Marines raising the American flag and replaced the flag with a tree. The cover story by Bryan Walsh calls green “the new red, white and blue.”
Donald Mates, an Iwo Jima veteran, told the Business & Media Institute on April 17 that using that photograph for that cause was a “disgrace.”
“It’s an absolute disgrace,” Mates said. “Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.”
Mates also said making the comparison of World War II to global warming was erroneous and disrespectful.
“The second world war we knew was there,” Mates said. “There’s a big discussion. Some say there is global warming, some say there isn’t. And to stick a tree in place of a flag on the Iwo Jima picture is just sacrilegious.”
According to the American Veterans Center (AVC), Mates served in the 3rd Marine Division and fought in the battle of Iwo Jima, landing on Feb. 24, 1945.
“A few days later, Mates’ eight-man patrol came under heavy assault from Japanese forces,” Tim Holbert, a spokesman for the AVC, said. “During fierce-hand-to-hand combat, Mates watched as his friend and fellow Marine, Jimmy Trimble, was killed in front of his eyes. Mates was severely wounded, and underwent repeated operations for shrapnel removal for over 30 years.”
Lt. John Keith Wells, the leader of the platoon that raised the flags on Mt. Suribachi and co-author of “Give Me Fifty Marines Not Afraid to Die: Iwo Jima” wasn’t impressed with Time’s efforts.
“That global warming is the biggest joke I’ve ever known,” Wells told the Business & Media Institute. “[W]e’ll stick a dadgum tree up somebody’s rear if they want that and think that’s going to cure something.”
Time managing editor Richard Stengel appeared on MSNBC April 17 and said the United States needed to make a major effort to fight climate change, and that the cover’s purpose was to liken global warming to World War II.
“[O]ne of the things we do in the story is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change,” Stengel said. “It seems to me that this is an issue that is very popular with the voters, makes a lot of sense to them and a candidate who can actually bundle it up in some grand way and say, ‘Look, we need a national and international Manhattan Project to solve this problem and my candidacy involves that.’ I don’t understand why they don’t do that.”
Holbert, speaking on behalf of the American Veterans Center, said the editorial decision by Time to use the photograph for the cover trivialized the cause the veterans fought for.
“Global warming may or may not be a significant threat to the United States,” Holbert said. “The Japanese Empire in February of 1945, however, certainly was, and this photo trivializes the most recognizable moment of one of the bloodiest battles in U.S. history. War analogies should be used sparingly by political advocates of all bents.”
Stengel also appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on April 17 and had no difficulty admitting the magazine needed to have a “point of view.”
“I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things,” Stengel said. “You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let’s just say so.”
There isn’t much that moonbats won’t try to blame on the nonexistent global warming crisis — including their own well-documented and apparently worsening mental problems:
“Psychosocial illnesses are a part of the various health issues associated with climate change,” Poonam Khetrapal Singh, Deputy Regional Director, WHO, said.
WHO, the World Health Organization, is part of the corrupt and pernicious U.N., #1 worldwide promoter of the insidious global warming hoax.
Considering that it hasn’t gotten any warmer since 1998, moonbats may soon have to confess that there unfortunately is no global warming, manmade or otherwise. But they’ll have a ready excuse for years of telling lies about the weather: global warming baked their brains, causing them to have delusions that there is such a thing as global warming.
Kyoto - A Perspective (Part 5) - EMISSIONS TRADING AND CARBON TAX.
Thursday, April 3rd, 2008
Since PA Pundits is a recent addition to my blog reads this is part 5 of this blog series. Be sure to check out the previous posts below.
************
Note the subtle change in the sub heading, from carbon footprint to carbon tax.
In the previous piece I mentioned the psychology aspect in distracting you from the real point, and how I mentioned that the same applies for the bigger picture.
The small picture is the small extra payment on the airline ticket to offset that carbon element of your flight, and how you feel better knowing you have made the flight carbon neutral, even though the environment was actually harmed by that flight.
There was an article recently in our Australian media, and to show I’m not making it up, I’ll include the link.
This article mentioned that there could be a huge windfall for the government if an emissions trading scheme was introduced, and whatever you do, don’t refer to it as a new tax, but refer to it as something bland and ‘nice’ sounding, something acceptable.
One thing that interests me in a wry sort of manner is that with a flourish, our Prime Minister signs off on Kyoto, and then 17 weeks later (and it’s always later) the huge implications regarding the potential cost reach the surface.
Incidentally, this report is from the ABC, which in this case, stands for Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It has no allegiance with or relationship to the US ABC network, and in fact the Australian ABC is actually 10 years older than the US ABC, an offshoot of NBC. Our ABC is the national broadcasting network, and is non commercial. (See how you guys are learning about Australia along the way. We’re more like you than any other nation on the Planet, although Australians might fiercely disagree.)
Later, some of you might like to read the comments from readers to get some idea of the feedback, but the article is included to show that Emissions Trading could be worth up to $20Billion. That works out to $1,000 for every man woman and child in Australia, per year.
Extrapolated out to US figures, that works out close to $300Billion, but the figure is approximately the same at $1,000 per person, exchange rates being relatively similar. So that works out for that average Pennsylvania family that I introduced as an example in the previous piece of husband, wife, and 2 children around $4,000 per year or close to an extra $80.00 out of the weekly household budget.
Ted Turner, on what will happen if global warming is not addressed immediately:
Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hottest in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down.
Folks I swear. This level of retardation on TV should be illegal, or at the very least must have some sort of parental warning disclaimer.
This is another example of intellectually vacant liberals getting free air time saying the dumbest shit and society lets this crazy bastard get away with it as if tis a fact.
He had to be high on crack or something or had several martinis before appearing on the show. How the hell can you explain him willingly spitting out such nonsense!?
Other than having the militant backing of the world governmedia, the global warming hoax doesn’t have a whole lot going for it — not even originality. An AP article in the Washington Post tried to scare readers into buying some more papers by gasping:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
This was back in 1922. If moonbats’ precious ice was already melting away 86 years ago, you’d think it would all be gone by now, wouldn’t you?
You could almost start to believe that the climate naturally fluctuates, regardless of what kind of light bulbs we use.
“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”
The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.
“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”
I’m far from being an expert and I can nor will I ever claim to be a person who is completely versed on the scientific analysis concerning global warming, but I do know this: Global Warming is likely the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world population.
My God I have read so many liberal blogs, and these idiot TV pundits who try to explain all of this global warming bullshit as if somehow they have been granted exclusive 411 (information) handed down by Jesus Christ himself.
Anybody who can’t see the great money making scam in perpetuating this global warming terrorist scare is simply a fool.
If I would have been smart enough to go into any science field, studying climatology or whatever field you need to go into to scam university or research grant monies, I would be screaming about global warming too.
Then you add that idiot socialist Hillary wanting to steal money from the oil companies and add it to Gubment pockets and you global warming folks can’t see what is happening?
No seriously, are you people playing stupid or is that Ferengi bartender slipping a Mickey in your morning coffee on a daily basis?
Published on Friday, January 30, 2004 by CommonDreams.orgWhile global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore’s recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age.
What they’re finding is not at all comforting.
In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the “little ice age” of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.
A Chilling Possibility - By disturbing a massive ocean current, melting Arctic sea ice might trigger colder weather in Europe and North America.
March 5, 2004: Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.
That’s the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver–comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants–Europe’s average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.Right: Retreating Arctic ice, 1979-2003, based on data collected by the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSMI). [More]
Some scientists believe this shift in ocean currents could come surprisingly soon–within as little as 20 years, according to Robert Gagosian, president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Others doubt it will happen at all. Even so, the Pentagon is taking notice. Andrew Marshall, a veteran Defense Department planner, recently released an unclassified report detailing how a shift in ocean currents in the near future could compromise national security.
“It’s difficult to predict what will happen,” cautions Donald Cavalieri, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, “because the Arctic and North Atlantic are very complex systems with many interactions between the land, the sea, and the atmosphere. But the facts do suggest that the changes we’re seeing in the Arctic could potentially affect currents that warm Western Europe, and that’s gotten a lot of people concerned.”
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Wednesday, February 27th, 2008
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Read the rest if you wish, global warming alarmist nuts will no doubt try to regroup and come up with new scare tactics.
Compact fluorescent lamps - those spiral, energy-efficient bulbs popular as a device to combat global warming - can pose a small risk of mercury poisoning to infants, young children, and pregnant women if they break, two reports concluded yesterday.But the reports, issued by the state of Maine and the Vermont-based Mercury Policy Project, urged homeowners to keep using compact fluorescents because their energy-saving benefits far outweigh the risk posed by mercury released from a broken lamp.
They said most danger could be avoided if people exercised common-sense caution, such as not using compact fluorescents in table lamps that could be knocked over by children or pets and properly cleaning up broken bulbs.
Keep people and pets away. Open windows, and leave the area for 15 minutes before beginning the cleanup.
Do not use a vacuum cleaner, even on a carpet. This will spread the mercury vapor and dust and potentially contaminate the vacuum.
Wear rubber gloves.
Carefully remove the larger pieces and place them in a secure closed container, preferably a glass jar with a metal screw top lid and seal like a canning jar.
Next, scoop up the smaller pieces and dust using two stiff pieces of paper such as index cards or playing cards.
Pick up fine particles with duct tape, packing tape, or masking tape, and then use a wet wipe or damp paper towel.
Put all waste into the glass container, including all material used in the cleanup. Remove the container from your home and call your local solid waste district or muni
