“Stephen, speaking as a foreigner, I confess I’m finding it harder and harder to see why you fellows bothered holding a revolution. Under this bill, it will be illegal for me to sell my property to a willing buyer without first bringing it into line with some twerp bureaucrat’s arbitrary and ever shifting “environmental” regulations originally designed for California, and which have helped turn the Golden State into the foldin’ state, but which are nevertheless now to be applied from Maine to Alaska. And no matter what you spend a couple of years down the road the standards will be “revised” and you’ll be out of compliance all over again.”
Look, I think electric cars are a great idea -SO LONG as we allow more energy to be produced, which the big proponents of electric cars, for some reason, oppose. I remember posting about this irrationality before. Allow me to quote myself:
The three main components of Obama’s [energy] plan are:
— Get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.
— Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.
—Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.
Which brings us to this rather comical audio from the Mark Levin show:
“You plug it in at night!”
So I guess magical ‘green’ electricity comes from “the night”…and evil fossil fuels then must come from Dick Cheney.
My book is fundamentally about prejudice based on wrong information.
I used to oppose nuclear power, even though the Sierra Club supported it. By the mid-1970s the Sierra Club turned against nuclear power too. However, as we witness the catastrophic consequences of accelerated global temperature increase, prominent environmentalists as well as skeptics like me have started taking a fresh look at nuclear energy….
When I began my research eight years ago, I’d assumed that we had many choices in the way we made electricity. But we don’t. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, environmentally-benign, time-tested technology currently available to provide clean electricity. Wind and solar power have a role to play, but since they’re diffuse and intermittent, they can’t provide baseload, and they always require some form of backup–usually from burning fossil fuels, which have a huge impact on public health.
was surprised to learn that:
Nuclear power emits no gases because it does not burn anything; it provides 73% of America’s clean-air electricity generation, using fuel that is tiny in volume but steadily provides an immense amount of energy.
Uranium is more energy-dense than any other fuel. If you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, your share would come to 146 tons: 69 tons of solid waste that would fit into six rail cars and 77 tons of carbon dioxide that would contribute to accelerated global warming.
A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana. Someone working in the U.S. Capitol Building is exposed to more radioactivity than a uranium miner.
Spent nuclear fuel is always shielded and isolated from the public. Annual waste from one typical reactor could fit in the bed of a standard pickup. The retired fuel from 50 years of U.S. reactor operation could fit in a single football field; it amounts to 77,000 tons. A large coal-fired plant produces ten times as much solid waste in one day, much of it hazardous to health. We discard 179,000 tons of batteries annually–they contain toxic heavy metals.
Nuclear power’s carbon dioxide emissions throughout its life-cycle and while producing electricity are about the same as those of wind power.
Nuclear plants offer a clean alternative to fossil-fuel plants. In the U.S. 104 nuclear reactors annually prevent emissions of 682 million tons of CO2. Worldwide, over 400 power reactors reduce CO2 emissions by 2 billion metric tons a year.
As I learned more, I became persuaded that the safety culture that prevails at U.S. nuclear plants and the laws of physics make them a safe and important tool for addressing global warming. Clearly many of my beliefs had originated in misinformation and fear-mongering.
As everyone well knows, the Earth is on the way to destruction because of man’s careless action. Every decision man has made throughout human history has, in effect – set up us the bomb, and has now clearly shown to directly link to catastrophic global climate change.
With the recent decision by the top scientists of the US Supreme Court to list CO2 as an air pollutant, it is clear that if we do not act we have no chance to survive make our time. It is now the duty of every one of us to shed any critical thoughts of critical-ness and make a move to become green today.
The question is, what can you do?
Introducing – The Gaia-Christo-Verde Suit (GCV)
Global Warming Kit - Obviously, this embarrassing product is designed to make people feel they are contributing (though the outcome is so immeasurable minute as to be a gimmick rather than a real product) to the Earth by becoming 'green' with the absolute minimal amount of effort and actual real change to their lifestyle.
The Gaia-Christo-Verde Suit is a new product from the EarthPlanetGood Inc. (Don’t worry, EarthPlanetGood is a good and green corporation like Apple, Target, and Ikea – not like Walmart, ExxonMobil, or Microsoft). The basic idea behind the GCV is the total reduction of an individual’s carbon footprint. The idea for the technology sprung from the marriage of several ideas.
There are currently products available that are aiming to reduce carbon footprints – such as the laughable Global Warming Kit (seen on the right). Unfortunately, these products fall far short of achieving any real measurable change to our precious Earth, instead simply filling an emotional gap for most people as a way to feel less guilty about their destruction of the planet.
We at EarthPlanetGood Inc know that anyone who really cares about effecting global climate change must do more than purchase simple trinkets.
Secondly, EarthPlanetGood Inc is concerned about the actions taken by what are considered ‘green’ protesters. For instance, notice the blatant disregard for CO2 emissions exhibited by Earth First’s so-called ‘Mourning for Old Growth Forests’:
Note the blasphemous, frivolous, and copious release of CO2 emissions. And yet, all this is done in the guise of the 'environmentalism'
This wasteful and careless disregard for our planet cannot be tolerated.
It was for these reasons, EarthPlanetGood Inc. invested in creating the Gaia-Christo-Verde Suit with the goal of completely eliminating CO2, and any other destructive emissions. So, without further ado:
“THIS IS THE WORLD’S FIRST GLOBAL ELECTION, BETWEEN EARTH AND GLOBAL WARMING.
On March 28 you can VOTE EARTH by switching off your lights for one hour.
Or you can vote global warming by leaving your lights on.
The results of the election are being presented at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009. We want one billion votes for Earth, to tell world leaders that we have to take action against global warming.”
This week CEI announced the creation of Human Achievement Hour (HAH) to be celebrated at 8:30pm on March 28th 2009 (the same time and date of Earth Hour).
Our press release described ways people might celebrate the achievements of humanity such as eating diner, seeing a film, driving around, keeping the heat on in your home—all things that Earth Hour celebrators, presumably, should be refraining from. In the cheekiest manner, we claimed that anyone not foregoing the use of electricity in that hour is, by default, celebrating the achievements of human beings. Needless to say, the enviros in the blogosphere didn’t take to kindly to our announcement.
Matthew Wheeland, an environmental journalist called the holiday “mind-blowingly strange” and pondered if Earth hour folks are including in their numbers people in countries that don’t have enough electricity to make the choice to turn out their lights. Of course, they don’t have the choice to acquire electricity whereas anyone can choose to stop using human technology if they wish…
…Green and private conservation are fine. We have no problem with an individual (or group) that wants to sit naked in the dark without heat, clothing, or light. Additionally, we’d have no problem with the group holding a pro-green technology rally. That’s their choice. But when this group stages a “global election” with the express purpose of influencing “government policies to take action against global warming,” we have every right as individuals to express our vote for the opposite
If our Human Achievement Hour is at all a dig against Earth Hour, it is so only by the fact that we are pointing out what Earth Hour truly is about: it isn’t pro-earth, it is anti-man and anti-innovation. So, on March 28th I plan to continue “voting” for humanity by enjoying the fruits of man’s mind.
How far has the green eco-stress induced psychotic dysentery gone? Yeah, that far:
Couples who have more than two children are putting an ‘irresponsible’ burden on the environment, the Government’s leading green adviser has warned.
Jonathon Porritt called on ministers to take action to reduce population growth in Britain, and criticised fellow green campaigners for ducking the ‘controversial’ issue.
Mr Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises the Government on green matters, said the SDC was due to publish a report on the subject next month.
It is thought he wants the Government to divert money away from curing illnesses so it can fight global warming by funding family-planning services, including abortion and contraception.
Mr Porritt, a father of two, said: ‘I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate.
‘I think we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.
But then again, it is a joke. Perhaps the best joke ever!
FAIRBANKS — Al Gore can thank the Nobel Committee for honoring him with the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
He can also thank Fairbanks businessman Craig Compeau for what could be the farthest-north likeness of the former vice president: A 5-ton ice sculpture of a “shivering” Gore, created during a recent spell of bitterly cold weather in Alaska and aimed at confronting global-warming theories.
Compeau described himself as a moderate skeptic of those who “rabidly” believe man-made emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperatures. Gore won his Nobel for raising awareness of global warming as one of the greatest challenges facing mankind.
“Be skeptical. Or not. But research it yourself,” Compeau told the roughly three dozen onlookers and reporters gathered at the corner of Airport Way and Cushman Street at 10 a.m. Monday under gray skies. “There’s a lot on both sides.”
Compeau, who manages an outdoor recreation sporting goods store, is coupling the unveiling with a fundraiser to benefit the Presbyterian Hospitality House, a local nonprofit. Anyone — skeptic or not — can play by guessing whether this winter will be warmer or colder, and by how much, than was the winter of 1947-1948. Gore was born on March 31, 1948.
Compeau unveiled the sculpture — created by a local artist Steve Dean — near the downtown Thrifty Liquor store, where he said it will stay through March or “until it melts.”
Again, just more opinions to consider when your local news talks about global warming, CO2 emissions, or carbon credits, as if global warming is a definite fact. This time they come from the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman. Note that he considers himself an environmentalist, as I do, though I have many serious doubts about the reality of man-caused global warming (aka. global climate change):
The other day I linked to this rather absurd pants-crapper of a story from the Associated Press. I didn’t quote this bit however:
Scientists fear that what’s happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.
Wow, that sounds really terrible…
…Except that water is more dense as a liquid than it is as ice. I guess the AP’s science writer kind of failed to mention this rather important point. See here I’ve filled a glass with ice and water:
Note how the ice has floated to the top. This is what is known as the Archimedes Principle (No, not a link to Wikipedia, though you can look it up yourself there if you wish).
I then proceeded to fill the glass to the absolute maximum, even so the water was actually slightly higher than the rim of the glass:
Next, I simply waited till the ice melted.
Huh…no rise whatsoever…
Of course, this is because the ice floating in the water was already displacing it’s own volume. Don’t count on the AP’s “science” writer to state this fact, especially when a melting ice story sounds so totally scary.
Now, Al Gore is in hysterics about glacial ice melting on land and adding to the ocean – thus causing the seas to rise. In fact, he is so worried about it happening, that in his film – An Inconvenient Truth, he used scary looking footage of ice caps to make his point. Well…actually they were Computer Generated icecaps from the intro to the movie The Day After Tomorrow:
The point is – this huge impending fear of melting ice causing the seas to rise is not settled science – though there is no way you would even imagine that reading the APs article (let alone Archimedes Principle).
And I feel like I have to point this out in every post about environmental issues: It’s not that I don’t care about our planet. I do however value truth, (especially when an issue effects liberty).
I am adamantly opposed to governments gaining the power to enact onerous tyrannical legislation based on phony-bologna junk-science from the hysterical propagandists (GE and NBC’s Green Week.) who have directfinancial stakes in the legislation being passed. This is a coercive tactic using the strong-arm of government to force people into investing in “green” tech, carbon credits, and other things.
The worst part is that the media is content reporting Jedi Mind Tricks. Any data critical of anthropomorphic global warming: “This isn’t the scientific data you’re looking for, move along.” You won’t read a critical thought from the A.P. cause they aren’t concerned with truth. Whatever happened to investigative journalism? What…Now we just report whatever some government organization (read IPCC) says, and don’t ask questions?
In my opinion, you extremists do nothing to help your cause. Your only efforts have been drowning out opposing viewpoints, and slandering critics in morally reprehensible terms (aka ‘Deniers’). In the words of the once great Oliver Cromwell before the Long Parliament:
“You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”