Archive for November, 2007

Christopher Booker: Planet-saving madness

We are set on a course of ‘planet saving’ madness

The Staple Environmentalmobile to be replaced?

You Know Honda/Toyota feel Threatened by GM When…

I am excited about the Chevy Volt.  Very excited.  Even more so when Honda/Toyota say stuff like this:

Now Honda has jumped into the fray, swinging wildly away at the Great Hybrid Hope from the bow tie brand. This past Tuesday, Honda’s chief exec Takeo Fukui told journalists that “so-called” plug-in hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles didn’t do enough for the environment, so his company isn’t going to pursue them. Not satisfied at leaving it at that, he noted the Chevy Volt specifically and said it made little sense. Fukui said Honda is working on high-performing lithium batteries, and if they succeed a pure battery-powered electric vehicle is in its future.

The Volt is rated to go 40 miles on one charge without using any gasoline.  According to statics, the average commuter travels less than that in a day.  actually:

70% of those who drive to work, travel less then 40 miles round trip. The average commute is 32 miles round trip.
So, “don’t do enough for the environment” huh?  anyone disagree (though I do admit that despite the Hollywood claims, cars only account for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions anyway so we should worry about turning coal to Nuclear before worring about cars, but I digress, the article goes on:

What bothers us about Toyota and Honda going after General Motors and its plans for the Chevy Volt is simply the fact that they’re bothering to address the Volt at all. Stop worrying about what the other guy’s doing and get to work on your own plan for saving the Earth from the evil of the internal combustion engine. We get it, you both aren’t down with doing a plug-in series hybrid like the Volt. Then what are you going to do and where is it? Rather than claiming consumers aren’t going to respond well to a hybrid that has to be plugged in everyday (yeah, who wants to get their fuel from the outlet in their garage rather than driving down the street for it?), quit yer yappin’ and show us a better solution!

We’re not claiming the Volt will be a silver bullet for saving the environment. In fact, it’s likely an even shorter stop gap between the cars we drive today and pure electric vehicles that sacrifice nothing in terms of range and durability than the common parallel hybrids we drive today. Battery technology, however, isn’t there yet, and if the Volt can provide consumers super high fuel economy in the meantime, is that a bad thing? Perhaps for Toyota and Honda it is.

Now, The Prius has become a staple for the “I don’t know any better about the environment but all my friends are doing it” EnvironMentalists… as we all know 57% of the people who buy a Prius say the Number one reason they got it is: “Because it makes a statement and says something about me” instead of “It helps the planet”
So I predict you will see the volt be suscessful; if Honda/Toyota are worried about it after all.  But note my prediction here:  Many EnvironMentalists will still Claim they “prefer their prius” or “Like the hybrids” more because of this zen-style bullshit over the pride of “I burn zero fuel in an American car” thing.  Because as I noted at a doctor’s office I am at this week, while EVERY car in the parking lot is American except for the vehicles that belong to the three doctors (2 Lexus vehicles and one Infinity)… Owing an foreign car isn’t about how long the vehicles last, or performance, or how much better it is for the environment… but its about making a statement to those who see you behind the wheel.  EnvironMentalism is not only about forcing those who have more then you to give it up… It’s about vanity.
Thats my opinion anyway.  Thoughts?  This is a big deal.. And I’m not talking about a $45,000 100mile range then charge for 8-10 hours crap like the EV1.  I’m talking about an electric vehicle that actually makes sence.  And not Church Dogma sence like the Prius.  Check it out.

Weather Channel founder: global warming ‘the greatest scam in history’

John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel: “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.”

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the church try to discredit John here for “ties to big oil” or someother nonesence.  But I thought there was a consensus and the science was settled…  Apparently not.

The Church is not going to be a fan of John Coleman, the founder/boss of the Weather Channel.  He published in his blog that Global warming is “the greatest scam in history.”

The whole thing can be downloaded from here.

Now, I know it was big news when Al Gore got his Nobel Peace Prize and his emmy and all, but you don’t seam to see the story about John here anywhere in the big news yet.  I understand it only happened yesterday, but come on.  Then Again, what with NBC’s whole Green Week going on now, it would be a shame to point out how the only green the Church of Global Warming is intrested in is the kind with dead presidents on it.

PAST User Comments

Comment by GUEST on 2007-12-04 01:51:58
cant be a scam all reasearch says global warming is contributed to by fuel use (carbon dioxide emissions.) the only researchers who disagree are the ones who get paid research grants by the oil companies, and dont do any research at all. most haven t for 10 years. by the way these are the same people whose (research) told us that smoking is not dangerous and doesn t cause cancer. saw it on investigative report.

Comment by admin on 2007-12-04 09:45:56
Could you show us where the founder of the weather channel has gotten paid from the oil companies? 
Also, by “All research says global warming is contributed to by fuel use” where do you get this statement? It is a little dangerous to use the word “All” when talking about anything. 
On the topic of who gets paid by who… what about “Big Environment?” I’m sure since you are tracking who gets paid by oil companies and take that into account as BIAS, you would be just as skeptical to take information by those paid off by Environmental groups, correct? 
“by the way these are the same people whose (research) told us that smoking is not dangerous and doesn t cause cancer.” 
If you could show me a list of the names of scientists who said both “Man isn’t causing global warming” and “Smoking doesn’t cause Cancer” I would love to see it!

Comment by GUEST on 2008-01-28 15:08:09
Your deflection of those comments from 2007-12-04 does not address the real issue at hand – human caused or “anthropogenic” climate change. Climatologists prefer to use “climate change” because it is a more accurate term than “global warming.”  
While John Coleman was a meteorologist (and a businessman – as for the relevance of starting a cable channel, I don’t see it), he is only 1 (one) vociferous, moderately qualified person making ‘scam’ claims.  
If you would honestly like to be pointed in the direction of solid, scientific peer-reviewed research, I suggest you start with the Intergovernmenal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Union of Concerned Scientists. 
It is a big world. There is not just one cause of climate change. A strong correlation, however, has been shown between greenhouse gas levels and the Earth’s temperature. If we are affecting the normal cycle with our human industries, can we be sure that we will be able to survive in the resulting world? Furthermore, while no one can answer that question; if we can use our existing technologies to reduce warming gases, why wouldn’t we use them? 
Because we need proof first? Do we need proof that we will get heart disease when we are 60 years old to make us buy health insurance when we are 40? 
Some call it the precautionary principle. No matter what you call it is simply common sense. As for your quote by the Canadian Environmental Minister promising justice and equality as the result of climate change: I’d like to see her tell that schlock to the people of the Tuvalu or Kiribati islands, who will have to flee their home islands because they are being flooded by rising ocean levels. 
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I would further like to add that your usage of the star and crescent is misleading and could be offensive to people who practice Islam. In the first glimpses of your website, one encounters an inflammatory combination of images that immediately reveals information askew. Well Done!~ m.e.a.

Comment by admin on 2008-02-06 22:07:10
The comment left originally didn’t need to be “deflected” as even one as wise as yourself could see that the use of the word “all” when looking at research is inaccurate, unless you don’t count all that research that says the Sun Spot activity is to blame. 
We need proof first because those that make governmental policy are willing to throw away billions and billions of (insert any country’s currency here) into environMental programs to try to stop what can be seen as a normal changing of the seasons. Why regulate C02 when in the Late Ordovician Period, CO2 levels were over 11 times higher than today (4400 ppm) but the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age? What about the science that says C02 follows warming? If we are to enact live changing governmental regulations, yes we need proof. 
And I’m glad you like the Images. Stay tuned… The Star of David CLF Light Bulb and Catholic Cross Windmill images aren’t quite done yet.

Comment by KnowonSpecial on 2009-07-11 00:58:21
Admin – excellent response, I’m a bit surprised that you didn’t hurt yourself laughing at his “solid, scientific peer-reviewed research . . . IPCC”  
1. Not “solid” – of the less than 2,400 involved on that report more than 10% have either reversed their views, ameliorated (liberals will need to look up that word, sorry) their opinions, disassociated themselves from the report or have had their work exposed as fraudulent or out-right deception. The remainder have been exposed as using faulty, broken models, and censoring and removing data which proved their conclusions inaccurate. 
2. Not “scientific” – of all the less than 2,400 total involved in the IPCC report, less than 1,800 were “scientists”, most were governmental (politicians, duh!)appointees and/or eco-activists. Also,less than 1,000 had scholarly degrees, at all, and fewer than that with a degree higher than Bachelors, few had Ph.D.’s. Of course the more than 30,000 (that’s thirty thousand for the California educated liberal who has difficulty with real numbers, which is like, you know, more than 2,400)real scientists who have signed on as denying man-made Global Warming, over 1,500 have Ph.D.’s and nearly 2/3 of them all have degrees in a RELATED field of study. 
3. Not “peer reviewed” – part of the embarrassment of the panel was the fact that most of the data used was NOT peer-reviewed. 
4. Not really “research” – Real researchers understand that real research requires you to observe. Not build fun little computer models and watch who skewed you can run the model projections by deliberately imputing whacked out (scientific term used by IPCC researchers) numbers, that often left out critical data or deliberately used inaccurate measures. Even NASA has acknowledged the broken measuring, and the IPCC admitted that critical data was “censored” and “edited out”. The IPCC also shot themselves in the foot with the release of the information showing that several of those scientists who did work on their report told them that global warming did not exist, the evidence did not support it and that anthropogenic global warming was simply not true and that the IPCC ignored their conclusions and basically published what they knew the politicians wanted so they could forward their power grabbing/greedy agenda (aka Cap ‘n’ Trade) 
Anyway, just wanted to say “hi”, really terrific site here, good job! And thanks for stopping by
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wordpress themes