I almost didn’t post this, but how could I not… It’s obviously prime What The Crap material:
Yeah, I apologize for that. HT: Ace
I almost didn’t post this, but how could I not… It’s obviously prime What The Crap material:
Yeah, I apologize for that. HT: Ace
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.
Seriously though, the real solution is Nuclear power, as environmentalist Gwyneth Cravens (a former opponent of nuclear energy) points out in her book: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy:
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)
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’:
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:
What The Crap – now with More Cowbell:
Oh happy day!
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 direct financial 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 thing I hate about this is that the actual prudent folks, who do wish for responsible and practical stewardship of the planet have no voice. If you aren’t shrieking bloody murder about our impending doom, or absurd notions like “we have ten years to save the planet,” and if you dare doubt or ask questions, or if you aren’t willing to lie to serve the cause — well…you’re basically an evil scum-bag who likely receives money from Lucifer Big Oil.
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!”
From the Daily Telegraph (emphasis mine):
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported…READ THE REST
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world’s governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
Ha! Climate Science… About as convincing as Astrology Science.
Will the media start reporting the fact that the science behind climate change is vastly complex and most predictions are based on biased computer models? What about promoting the idea that carbon dioxide emissions might not lead to catastrophic global warming? Or will a government official challenge the idea that we should oppose crippling legislation such as ‘carbon taxes’ on business, when it turns out there isn’t a consensus on anthropomorphic global warming? Or will schools stop teaching about global warming as a definite fact?
The Arctic icecap is doing just fine, thank you.
And all of this is happening while the heat output from the Sun is decreasing.
Which is just a coincidence, of course.
I had to repost this from the Exurban League because I couldn’t make it more concise.
Wow, – this kinda sounds like what I have been saying over and over. (emphasis mine)
…the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
Go Oregon! Here’s the link to the press release.
And here’s a picture of Al Gore who will almost certainly launch ad hominem attacks on these scientists to try to discredit them. Mark these words (or some variation of them): “They (or maybe a few of them) received money from oil companies.“