Uncategorized

Sources: Greenbiz.com, AccuWeather.com

A law requiring labels to be put on a new car’s window sticker will go into effect at the start of next year for all 2009 model cars.  This “global warming score” will display a scale from one to 10 to show how clean a car’s emissions are in comparison to other cars sold that year.  Higher score = cleaner car.

I wonder if this score will be put on Hydrogen powered cars that emit water vapor (which accounts for 30-90% of the greenhouse effect depending on who you ask)…  Or the manufacturing energy needed to create the car and ship it from Japan?  No, that wouldn’t be nearly as stylish, now would it?

First it was hurricanes, but now that those have been shown not to be caused by Global Warming, let’s switch to another weather event, shal we?

Keep it changing.  If you are in a debate, as you watch them in politics this season, you will notice how when someone is wrong, they will ignore it and move on to something else.  (Or, like the National Socialist German Workers’ Party does, keep repeating it and people will think its true.)

Al Gore, in a ‘tough’ interview with Terry Gross from NPR’s “Fresh Air” program:

And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.

So, Al Gore says “Scientists have long predicted” cyclones might be linked to global warming…  I’ll keep this short, but Scients also say global warming might not be caused by man.

Al is using ”mights” and “maybes” huh?  I thought the science was settled.

Al Gore and the IPCC jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

PALO ALTO, California (CNN) — Sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize helps underscore the urgency of the climate crisis, said former Vice President Al Gore on Friday.
“This is a chance to elevate global consciousness about the challenges that we face now,” said Al Gore.

 Gore’s comments came hours after the Nobel committee announced he would share the award with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their work to raise awareness about global warming.

“This is a chance to elevate global consciousness about the challenges that we face now,” Gore said, speaking to reporters in Palo Alto, California. “It truly is a planetary emergency, and we have to respond quickly.”

The former vice president said he would donate his half of the $1.5 million prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization he founded to persuade people to reduce global warming by cutting pollution.

“That amount is very small compared to the enormous challenge that lies ahead,” Gore said, including organizing a massive grass-roots movement and a mass advertising campaign focused on “trying to change the way people think.”

Earlier Friday, a White House spokesman said President Bush was pleased that Gore, Bush’s opponent in the 2000 presidential race, had won the award.

“Of course, he’s happy for Vice President Gore, happy for the International Panel on Climate Change scientists, who also shared the Peace Prize,” White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said. “Obviously it’s an important recognition, and we’re sure the vice president is thrilled.”

Fratto said Bush would not be under any pressure to adopt mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, a policy Gore has advocated.

Gore’s ex-boss, former President Clinton, also said he’s “thrilled by this well-deserved recognition,” and credited Gore with “warning and educating us about the dangers of climate change for decades. He saw this coming before others in public life.”

The Nobel committee’s announcement cited Gore and the IPCC “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

The award ceremony will be held December 10 in Oslo, Norway.  Watch why Gore won the Nobel prize »

In recent weeks, Gore has been the target of a campaign to persuade him to enter the 2008 presidential race.

A source involved in Gore’s past political runs told CNN that he definitely has the ambition to use the peace prize as a springboard to run for president.

But he will not run, because he won’t take on the political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the source. If the senator from New York had faltered at all, Gore would take a serious look at entering the race, the source said. But Gore has calculated that Clinton is unstoppable, according to the source.

Gore repeatedly denied he has any plans to run again, but this week a group of grass-roots Democrats calling themselves “Draft Gore” took out a full-page ad in The New York Times in a bid to change his mind. Watch Gore discuss global warming and politics

“Your country needs you now, as do your party, and the planet you are fighting so hard to save,” the group said in an open letter.

“America and the Earth need a hero right now, someone who will transcend politics as usual and bring real hope to our country and to the world.”

The Nobel committee praised Gore as being “one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians.”

“He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted,” said Ole Danbolt Mjos, chairman of the Nobel committee.

In making the announcement, Mjos said, “Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.

“Thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming.”

Said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. panel: “This is an honor that goes to all the scientists and authors who have contributed to the work of the IPCC.”

Renate Christ, secretary of the panel, called the award “the most significant recognition that the IPCC has received.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 to study climate change information. The group doesn’t do independent research but instead reviews scientific literature from around the world.

The U.N.-sanctioned group was formed by the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was “delighted” with the news that Gore and the IPCC will share in prize.

The Nobel caps a series of prestigious awards associated with Gore, including two Oscars this year for the 2006 documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which followed him on a worldwide tour publicizing the dangers of climate change.

Last month, he also picked up an Emmy — the highest award in U.S. television — for “Current TV.” The show, which Gore co-created, describes itself as a global television network giving viewers the opportunity to create and influence its programming.

Previous American recipients of the peace prize include former Presidents Carter in 2002, Wilson in 1919 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.

In 1973, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger shared the award with North Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. received the honor in 1964.  See more on 2007 Nobel winners »
Gore was vice president for eight years before winning the 2000 Democratic presidential nomination and running against Bush.

But he failed in his White House bid — despite winning the popular vote — when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his challenge over voting results in Florida, securing an Electoral College majority for Bush.

The religion of Global Warming can now add itself to the list of  extremist religions that are taking lives.  Increased demand to be “green” and to use biofuels has been causing the price of food to go up, the effects of which are not just seen, but felt in the third world.

As The New York Times discusses, the usefulness of ethanol in fuel is in question, now that people are starving and rioting because they cannot eat (either because of supply, or cost) while governments regulate (force) us to add the stuff to our gas tanks.  I will pick at the high points of these articles, and let you read the rest on their websites.

From the New York Times:

The idea of turning farms into fuel plants seemed, for a time, like one of the answers to high global oil prices and supply worries. That strategy seemed to reach a high point last year when Congress mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.

We are only a paragraph into this thing and there are blaring errors that are easily identifiable from a mile away.  For one, anyone who actually looks, reads, or studies the energy it takes to create ethanol and the energy we get from it would be able to tell you that producing the stuff is, compared to gasoline, worthless.  Not to mention the fact that you get about 1/4th the ethanol from corn that you do from switch grass, but I digress.  The second major problem with this first paragraph is the second sentence.  No grammatical errors, but when someone says “high point” and “when congress mandated” in the same sentence, you know not all their compact fluorescent light bulbs are working.  They go on to mention Riots, people dying, political instability and stuff, but I’ll skip over that.

Many specialists in food policy consider government mandates for biofuels to be ill advised, agreeing that the diversion of crops like corn into fuel production has contributed to the higher prices.

Yes!  Finally!  The New York Times points out how Government Mandates are not that great idea according to specialists!

But…

Oh, here we go.  I knew it was too good to be true.

But other factors have played big roles, including droughts that have limited output and rapid global economic growth that has created higher demand for food.

But… those specialists are stupid, and you should realy pay attention to how droughts (global warming) is causing it.  I know what your trying to do, New York Times.  It doesn’t take a communication major to know that people will pay more attention to the “But” statement.

While there is agreement that the growth of biofuels has contributed to higher food prices, the amount is disputed.

Wow.  That sounds familiar.  One could say that there is a consensus that biofuels make the cost of food to go up.  One could even say, I’m sure, that if you don’t believe this consensus, you are probably in the pocket of Big Corn… or a “food price gouging” skeptic.  Perhaps we should have the government look into price gouging by Big Corn too?

See how stupid the Church of Global Warming’s arguments look when you apply them to… well, anything else?

Ethanol supporters maintain that any increase caused by biofuels is relatively small and that energy costs and soaring demand for meat in developing countries have had a greater impact. “There’s no question that they are a factor, but they are really a smaller factor than other things that are driving up prices,” said Ron Litterer, an Iowa farmer who is president of the National Corn Growers Association.

Ah huh…  Big Corn skeptics.  See what I mean?  Just a paragraph before that little comment by Big Corn, the article states:

Work by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington suggests that biofuel production accounts for a quarter to a third of the recent increase in global commodity prices.

But, you know, a third.  That’s like… relatively small.  Right Ron Litterer?  Small… you know, compared to… a woolly mammoth.  Anyway, the article goes on to say, you know, bla bla bla, global food prices have increased by 83 percent in the last three years… bla bla bla.  They do mention in the last line however that many of the upheavals over food prices have concerned rice and wheat, staple foods yes, but are not used as biofuels.  Instead the reduced supply for rice and wheat come from droughts… Which I can go with as “Man made global warming droughts” because, you know, droughts didn’t happen until people started driving their cars.