[dufas]

Look back a number of posts in this thread, I provide photographic proof of exactly that! ANOTHER of those posts that was largely ignored! (gripe, grumble, mutter, mutter, etc.)

I have noticed that. In many blogs, news rooms, and posting sites, ignoring facts that do not fit the left's view or agenda is normal. Just as was the environmentalists I worked with changing the tests until the results fit their theories. It is not much different, the facts didn't fit, so lets cheat and modify the tests until it does fit.

This morning, I heard on the radio that the majority of the 'live' scenes in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" were computer generated in order to get his facts to fit his data. They interviewed several people who made the original clips. They stated that these snippets were used in movies and other videos and were not made for Al Gore's documentary..... I doubt that this will have any impact on the thinking from the left, after all, they have been caught many times with forged or made up evidence and doesn't seem to matter to them..

[Tempus]

Bush is good buddies with billionaires, they are some of his biggest supporters.

Like the Clintons? See their tax statements?

The money spent on illegals and welfare cheats? Sure it happens, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what's been wasted by this president on this erzatz war that was fought over oil.

and to get back to topic... any idea what the global warming farce has cost/ will cost us?

Liberals aren't like that, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time. Basically he never really said anything.
Take care,
xyzdonna

apparantly you didn't "listen", just heard

[jhowelb]

Like the Clintons? See their tax statements?


and to get back to topic... any idea what the global warming farce has cost/ will cost us?


apparantly you didn't "listen", just heard

She never even turned on the radio!


It will "cost" you your country, your freedom and your way of life. You will be living in Soviet style block tenements without heat, cooling or lights. You will be prowling garbage dumps looking for food. The object is to equalize America with Haiti, Somali, the border town with Mexico and untold places in South America.

[sergizmo]

To anyone with even an ounce of objectivity, global warming is a scam perpetrated by those looking to get rich. Al Gore and carbon credits being the most obvious example, and David Suzuki here north of the border. Also scientists/profs looking to get grants, TV and media outlets, and various companies looking to cash in with green junk products.

In Canada incandescent light bulbs will soon be banned, so we will be forced to use compact fluorescents. All well and good, except for the mercury inside these things. Drop and break one in the house and God help you. The mercury from one bulb can pollute up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels. As of yet there are no specialized ways to dispose of them (that I know of) in my area. So they go in the trash, where they will make landfills toxic waste dumps. When they are required by law, the problem will only get worse. A disposal solution may eventually be found, but it will almost certainly be expensive and an excuse to raise taxes.

You just have to love the double talking do-gooders. Al Gore using more electricity than 10 homes in his Tennessee mansion and having a hugely polluting mine on his property (until the mid nineties). Then flying all over the place in his private jet telling people to "go green" and ease their guilt by buying carbon credits and watching his joke of a "documentary" to line his pockets. Banning DDT spraying resulting in hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths in poor countries. And the latest, pushing extremely inefficient biofuels that contribute to food shortages in the third world which may lead to increased starvation and an even lower standard of life for these people. Burning food, what a great idea!

There are good reasons to move past or reduce dependance on oil. These being that the "easy" oil is mostly gone and it is getting more expensive to extract. The oilsands in Alberta being a prime example. Despite the high costs of excavation and separation, production is ramping up. Another reason is that oil is putting money in the pockets of people that hate Americans and Canadians (and probably infidels in general) the Saudis. Also with natural gas the Russians. Funding enemies of Western civilization is a huge mistake. The last, and least important reason is emissions. Air quality would improve if less fossil fuels were being burned.

The solutions are obviously not biofuels, air or solar. These are extremely inefficient, take up lots of space and don't provide enough power. The most logical solution is more nuclear power plants. These would not only provide power into the grid but could supply the hydrogen for fuel cell cars. The main drawbacks are increased threat of terrorist attack and waste disposal. Nuclear waste is compact so could be stored in concrete bunkers or blasted into space.

Another possibility is geothermal. Iceland gets almost all it's power from geothermal plants. Hawaii could certainly get all it's power from geothermal, and probably certain parts of the mainland as well. A combination of geothermal and nuclear could suit our energy needs very well.

Lastly, the move to a "service economy" could be the downfall of the west as the main power in the world. We are relying on other countries not terribly friendly to us for almost all manufactured goods. This is extremely dangerous and shortsighted. Not to mention the fact that a large portion of the "service economy" are government employees, whose salaries are paid for by taxpayers and who provide no real benefit to the economy.

Serge

[jhowelb]

Faith an Begorra! I gotta wingmate!

[sergizmo]

You sure do. Not all Canadians think like David Suzuki! He thinks that politicians and public figures that disagree with global warming should be imprisoned! If you think the global warming talk is outta control in the States, you wouldn't believe it in Canada. Even the local news has what seems like 10 out of 30 minutes dedicated to environmental crap every day. A Canadian science show "Daily Planet" makes virtually every one hour episode an environmental one. Five years ago this wasn't the case with this show, it used to be pretty good. Enough already.

At least we don't have the EPA. Our equivalent isn't quite as bad. I don't know how manufacturing can function at all in California. Bunch of do-gooder taxpayer funded bureaucrats!

[martinw]

To anyone with even an ounce of objectivity, global warming is a scam perpetrated by those looking to get rich.

Serge

Dear sergizmo,

Thank-you for that, and all the rest of your post.
Absolutely bang on the button...

Best wishes,

Martin

[pdl61]

The science concerning the global warming is overwhelming and unequivocal.

The IPCC state that they have very high confidence [>90%] that the evidence points to the warming being anthropogenic in origin.

You may very well be right. I dont think so, but you may be right. However, every single american can lower their foot print to zero and it wont make a bit of difference. NONE. China's co2 release is now equal to our and by 2017 will be 5 to 6 times ours. We either can get use to it and adapt, or invent technology to remove the co2.

[sergizmo]

You're welcome Martin.

It's grown to the status of religion. There are dieties, rules, dogma and a belief system.

I love how it's no longer "Global Warming". It's now "Climate Change". Way to move the goalposts. So if the temperature on any given day isn't the average recorded temp for that day, it's because of CO2. Nonsense.

[sergizmo]

You may very well be right. I dont think so, but you may be right. However, every single american can lower their foot print to zero and it wont make a bit of difference. NONE. China's co2 release is now equal to our and by 2017 will be 5 to 6 times ours. We either can get use to it and adapt, or invent technology to remove the co2.

Don't forget India. But hey they aren't western so it's ok.

The science is "overwhelming" because of grant money. Simple as that. Scientists who preach to the choir also get face time on print and on TV.

To those that say global warmaing is fact, what about global and oceanic temps going down significantly in 2007? What about the increased temp measured on other planets, no humans there. Or what about the strong link between solar activity and temperature. Naw, the sun couldn't possibly have anything to do with temperature on earth.

Face it people, weather and temperature on Earth is unstable and unpredictable. Always has been and will be. The Earth has gone through many ice ages and hotter periods before man even existed. There are probably hundreds of variables to consider when it comes to climate, and we account for very few of those.

Serge

[fizzissist]

it's gonna snow here tonight.

[jhowelb]

Welcome bavk Martin! Where ya been, bud?

[dufas]

We are putting so much C02 into the atmosphere that the ice caps on Mars are melting.

Another topic......

Our city fathers are thinking about outlawing kitchen garbage disposal units. They do not want ground up food waste to mix with the fecal matter, urine, toilet tissue, tampons, sperm, ditched out drugs and what ever else that might be down there.

I guess they are purists at heart....

[jhowelb]

It is their God given DUTY to sniff out the ways your life needs to be regulated and then see to it that you are as miserable as possible with what they have done.

The people can't be trusted with THAT decision!

Good God Gerty! What a wonderful thing is Congressional deadlock! Congress should be in session for only one day per year and then only if called to session by the prexy!

[jhowelb]

Oil hits fresh high as biofuels rethink looms

By Carola Hoyos in Rome and Ed Crooks and Javier Blas in London

Published: April 22 2008 23:52 | Last updated: April 22 2008 23:52

Expectations rose on Tuesday that soaring food prices will provoke a rethink of support for biofuels in Europe and the US, as the price of oil hit a new high of almost $120 a barrel.

Biofuels produced from crops such as corn and soya provide a small but fast-growing share of road-fuel supplies, and had been expected to make an important contribution to meeting growing demand.

But Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, said on Tuesday the country could push for a change in a European Union target to increase the proportion of biofuel to 10 per cent of road fuels by 2020.

Malcolm Wicks, the UK energy minister, went further, telling the Financial Times that the targets should be reviewed because of mounting concern that they are contributing to food shortages.

The remarks will reinforce perceptions in the oil market that government support for biofuels, without which US and European production is unlikely to be commercially viable, is at risk.

Kevin Norrish of Barclays Capital said that two years ago the assumption was biofuels would provide a significant share of the fuel supply – enough to make up new US demand for petrol.

“The realisation now is that this may not happen, because of the impact on food prices,” he said.

Biofuels still have strong political support in many countries. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, said last week: “Those rising global food prices have nothing to do [with] biofuels.”

But Rob Bailey of Oxfam said: “We want the government to stop adding fuel to the fire by subsidising the diversion of land to biofuels production.”

Agriculture diplomats are concerned that governments are focusing on biofuels as the main reason for rising food prices. They argue that the use of agricultural land and crops for fuel is only part of a mix of problems including higher demand in Asia, climate change, declining growth in farming productivity and water scarcity.

The European Commission has been defending its 10 per cent target. Asked by reporters on Monday whether the EU was reconsidering its position on the biofuels target, a spokesman said: “The answer is very simple. No.”

However, Mr Brown said in a statement on Tuesday, ahead of a meeting on food prices with industry leaders and development experts, that if a UK government review of the impact of biofuels now under way “shows that we need to change our approach, we will also push for change in EU biofuels targets”.

The review was launched in February and is due to deliver initial conclusions next month, with a full report by the end of June.

Speaking in Rome, Mr Wicks voiced the most open criticism yet from a British minister of European and US policies to encourage the use of biofuels.

“It would be ridiculous if we fill up our cars with 5-10 per cent of biofuels if the consequences are that somewhere else in the world people are not being fed,” he said.

“We need to have a second look [at the EU’s biofuels target]. I think we will.”

Environmental and social groups have intensified their campaigns against biofuels as food prices have risen, arguing that they are diverting production away from food and animal feed.

Until now the government’s policy has been to support the increased use of biofuels.

The renewable transport fuel obligation, compelling suppliers to provide 2.5 per cent of their sales as biofuel, took effect last week. The proportion rises to 5 per cent in 2010.

[CNC_Programmer]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html

[Mariss Freimanis]

Quoting from CNC_Programmer's news article link:

"But scientists from the U.S. National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Bolder, Colorado published a report in 2006 that showed the sun had a negligible effect on climate change."

These people are scientists?

Mariss

[jhowelb]

Also quoting from CNC_Programmer's news article link:


"Critics quickly pointed out that Chapman may have been "cherry-picking" the data."

Defending the agenda?

[fizzissist]

I love to note that not ALL the scientists from Boulder are on the same side of the fence. What I wish more people would note (present company excepted) is that only those on the AGW side seem to get any air time.

[Mariss Freimanis]

We live in Orange County, California. We are half way between Los Angeles and San Diego, about 10 miles inland from the Pacific. The thumbnail shows the last six months daily temperatures for San Diego, the closest major weather office to where I live. They are the source for this data.

The green portion of the graph is the climatic average low and high temperature range for each date. The red portion shows the above normal to record high temperature for each date and the purple portion shows the below normal to record low temperature. Black is the actual measured temperature for each day.

In the last 6 months 38 days have exceeded the average high temp.
In the last 6 months 101 days have dropped below the average low temp.
A quick inspection shows temperatures averaging 5F (2.8C) below normal for the last six months.

Global Warming? I don't think so.

Mariss