On July 29th, California Attorney General Jerry Brown threattened that he will sue to block a proposed water-bottling operation in Northern California unless its effects on global warming are evaluated.
Attorney General Jerry Brown on Tuesday said he will sue to block a proposed water-bottling operation in Northern California unless its effects on global warming are evaluated.
So, even bottling water will kill us all. What percentage of these environmentalists do you think won’t drink water out of the tap when bottled water is an option? I would bet my Tissot that it’s a pretty high number.
The Swiss-based company scaled back its plans in May after years of opposition from environmentalists and a group of McCloud residents. It originally sought to pump more than double the amount of water.
“Years of opposition”. Years. How much wasted energy and effort was spent keeping a company from bottling water? Do these people have any idea how much could have been accomplished if these people instead spent their energy on something useful? Like, splitting logs or counting ceiling tiles? Good God man, the entire state of California could have all of its ceiling tiles accounted for!
He (AG Jerry Brown) said it failed to include an examination of whether the operation will contribute to global warming through the production of plastic bottles, the operation’s electrical demands and the diesel soot and greenhouse gas emissions produced by trucks traveling to and from the plant.
Creating plastic water bottles contribute to global warming much in the same way my love affair for Taco Bell is contributing to my ability to loose weight. It is simply a fad, a style, something to be pissed off about. Paper Bags, McDonalds, Plastic Bags, Plastic Water Bottles… First they love, then they get pissed off, then they protest against for no good reason other then the guy at Starbucks said Woha dude, did you know how evil plastic is?
“It takes massive quantities of oil to produce plastic water bottles and to ship them in diesel trucks across the United States,” Brown said in a statement. “Nestle will face swift legal challenge if it does not fully evaluate the environmental impact of diverting millions of gallons of spring water from the McCloud River into billions of plastic water bottles.”
Yea, it also takes massive amount of energy, time, and money to make the political statement of the week. The worst thing about all this is the hard core EnvironMentalist will never admit they were wrong. Instead they chastise other EnvironMentalists like Dr. Patrick Moore for taking a rational look at energy production and lumber. Because the last thing you want in an emotional discussion, is logic.
Yep. Just when you thought you had accidently run over one with the car, 10 more pop up due to global warming.
From the Chicago Sun:
Global warming and kittens. While it may seem hard to see the connection between the two — a climate phenomenon that melts glaciers and acidifies oceans, and cuddly, 4-ounce balls of fur — experts say there could be one.
Each spring, the onset of warm weather and longer days drives female cats into heat, resulting in a few months of booming kitten populations known as “kitten season.”
Peterson said kitten season generally starts in March or April, as the days get warmer and longer, and the flood of kittens continues throughout the spring and early summer.
Good thing the earth has been getting colder for the last 10 year eh? otherwise the kittens might gorge themselves in our food supply. I remember the last time this happened… They nearly lost the ship:
That global warming has continued to captivate the media, car companies, energy companies and so many more demonstrates how enormously brainwashed Americans are.
That global warming has continued to captivate the media, car companies, energy companies and so many more demonstrates how enormously brainwashed Americans are.
Still convinced that “the entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming,” like Al Gore purported?
For starters, in November 2005, Swiss researchers from the journal Quaternary Science Reviews overtly stated, “Whatever slight impact humans might have on the climate, it is too small to measure.”
Bob Carter, an environmental scientist at James Cook University testified before a U.S. Senate Committee, saying, “Lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 percent).” We’re obviously not causing the type of damage we thought we were.
And if you’re still worried about the polar ice caps melting, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has reported that ice caps are not shrinking, but have actually increased in size and concentration from 1980 to 2008.
David Evans, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, shared in an article for The Australian that his initial reaction to the theory and buzz of global warming in 1999 was one of excitement, feeling “useful and fairly important; we were saving the planet.” He goes on to explain a few points:
“The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics . . . The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
“There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
“The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year.
“None of these points is controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.”
I probably have significantly punier scientific knowledge than Al Gore, but it is fairly obvious that Gore’s entire premise for his misleading documentary, that we are causing global warming, is questionable at best, and most likely false.
What is truly upsetting about all of this is not that so many of us were duped. It’s that so many of us are still duped.
American companies are still spending huge quantities in order to cater to this fraudulent belief. Instead of actually improving their products in ways that actually enhance efficiency and, hence, the strength of the company and the American economy, they’re catering to the brainwashed.
Judging by their “We can do this” campaign, Pacific Gas and Electric is still very comfortably convinced that global warming is inevitable, unless we all act quickly.
And in addition to the businesses, we have politicians who are either a) still clinging to empty threats about global warming or b) have seen the holes in the alleged global warming crisis but are too scared to take on the media. Is an alarmist theory that has been all but smothered really worth $6 trillion, which is what the proposed cap-and-trade climate bill is estimated to cost the U.S. by 2050? Does anyone else think this is crazy?
It smells a lot like a control issue to me, but who knows? Maybe there are a lot of ill-informed people who are just really concerned . . . and we elected them to represent us.
Feel free to reach your own conclusions about why so many are still convinced of a totally unconvincing theory. But it is imperative that those of us who have learned to question global warming have the courage to say so. Our country can’t afford a government that wastes absurd amounts of taxpayer dollars fighting windmills.
© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Carolina’s largest colation of black churches say Blacks are most at risk. What about all the Asian people?
Carolina’s largest coalitions of black churches is speaking out against human-generated global warming.
Leaders of the state’s black denominations of the National Council of Churches said Monday that blacks are most at risk for the affects of global warming.
I thought that everyone was at risk of Climate Change, and that if “we all” don’t act now and “come together”, “we all” are going to die in the fiery floods. So, if that is the case, how can “Blacks” be most at risk to the effects of Global Warming? And what about the White churches? And the Asians?
This reminds me of the analogy of a Fire in the theater. When they say in a crowded theater (the Earth), if there is a fire (Global Warming), to remain calm and deal with the problem. Besides, aren’t there more Asians on the earth then Black or White or Yellow people? What about The Asians?
Here, we have the “Leaders of the state’s black denominations of the National Council of Churches” pushing people asside saying:
We have to do something, because us Black people, you know, are more at risk to Fire then you white people!
As The Slate points out:
Global warming unduly impacts African Americans, whose lower incomes make it harder for them to avoid health problems and other ill effects, leaders said.
In realilty, if you are poor and want to NOT be impacted by the topic of global warming you should demand Congress stops running down the road of saving the environment. just two examples of how green-freakiness is costing people WAY more than otherwise would be. 1. Ethanol requirements has been severely impacting in a negative way food prices across the board. 2. The stupid (and coming) requirement to buy only the fluorescent bulbs…those things are insanely expensive and disposal of them (in accordance with the law) requires HazMat involvement…especially if they break. 3. Vote against Barack Obama and his need for a carbon offset fees and a Cap-and-Trade system for us all.
Its a good thing Global Warming isn’t a Political Issue or one would question the political nature of a non-proffit… Oh shoot, I guess it is a political issue. Good thing then this is the first time a “Black” church has done something Political. Oh Shoot… Its not. Awha Hell. I mean, Heck.
I am going to go to my Native American/German Jew church now and pray for the Asians. Those black people in the Black churches are too busy pushing people out of the way.
It turns out Europe is looking at reconsidering their biofuel goal, citing evidence that their requirements are contributing to deforestation and higher food prices. Whoopsie!
From the New York Times:
Until recently, European governments had sought to lead the rest of the world in the use of biofuels, aiming to derive 10 percent of Europe’s transportation fuels from biofuels by 2020. But the allure has dimmed amid growing evidence that the kind of goals proposed by the European Union are contributing to deforestation, which speeds climate change, and helping force up food prices.
Of corse they also note:
There is disagreement about the role in rising food prices, and some analysts say that the backlash against biofuels now is going too far.
Yes, you have to say this, because nothing that they do to save mother earth can be doubted. They also go on to say:
Michael Mann, a spokesman, said Monday that higher food prices had been caused by increased demand for meat and dairy products, particularly in China and India, two years of bad harvests around the world, speculation and by restrictions on exports of food commodities by some nations.
So, what is more likely? The most powerful governments in the world are trying to make a switch to bio-fuels due to all the environmental pressure in the past ten years, or that eating meat and darry products combined with a couple of bad years of harvesting? The last two years of bad harvests don’t account for the rise in price. If the EnvironMentalists were realy worried about saving people, they wouldn’t let people die of hunger for a politically correct fuel. maybe the EU is figuring this out.
TheAge.com.au reports that, contrary to popular belief, it turns out Global Warming is indeed a political issue.
More than a third (35%) were influenced by an environmental issue during the campaign, “more than were affected by any other set of issues”, Katharine Betts, associate professor of sociology at Swinburne University of Technology, writes in People and Place from an analysis of voting patterns among 1873 people surveyed by the Australian National University.
Huh… I guess I wouldn’t have ever seen that as a possibility, what with Al Gore the conductor of this crazy-train being a completly neutral political figure.
Has anyone done a study like this on US Citizens?
That’s the latest word from a team of climate researchers in Germany. Global average temperatures should remain above normal, the team suggests. But additional warming – already on hold over the first seven years of this decade – is likely to remain that way for another decade. The reason? The team says it expects natural shifts in ocean circulation to affect temperatures in ways that temporarily out-wrestle the effects of rising greenhouse-gas emissions.
So, this is basically a “yep, we were wrong, it’s getting colder, but keep worrying… It will get worse, we promise!”
Volcanos under the sea ice in the north are belching out CO2 and lava.
The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the “fountains” of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.
“Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process,” according to an international team that sent unmanned probes to the strange fiery world beneath the Arctic ice.
However, before you doubt Gore, they do go on to say:
The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice, but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn’t say.
Thats right, warming up the water, probably has nothing to do with melting Ice. And that thing about “Contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere” thing… yea… you’re not going to hear that anywhere else.
Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Beth Hall, former climatologist for the state of New Hampshire, has a couple things to say about how your SUV is not killing baby seals.
From the Boston Herald (about the weather that has hit New England):
“We can’t link it with global warming,” said Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “One of the robust predictions of global warming is that rainfall comes in heavier, but less frequent events. This hasn’t been less frequent. I don’t think you can blame the stuff we’ve seen this summer on global warming. It looks like were locked into a weather pattern.”
Beth Hall, the former climatologist for the state of New Hampshire, who just took a teaching job at Towson University in Maryland, agreed with her MIT colleague.
“You can actually go back to the pre-global warming frenzy,” she said. “There were just as bad floods back in the ’30s. We’re finding there are cases of this equally bad weather in the last 100 years. It kind of happens intermittently. We just went through a drought in the late ’90s and everyone wanted to say it was global warming, but the droughts in the ’30s and the ’60s were more extreme than what we saw. Climatologists are seeing these much larger cyclical patterns to these events than just the increase in carbon dioxide is able to explain.”
You are not going to hear about this in the local news paper (unless you live in Boston I guess), and these “Skeptics” will quickly be labled as such through the internet… thus not to be trusted. If you can’t argue against what they say, then all you have to do is stop listening.
Anchorage Alaska is set to break the record of days under 65 degrees.
From the Anchorage Daily News:
Right now the so-called summer of ’08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.
That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.
This year, however — with the summer more than half over — there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that’s with just a month of potential “balmy” days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.
They do note however that:
Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it’s “unequivocal” the world is warming, considering how 11 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 13 years.
They must not have corrected their numbers to account for the whole “10 year break” thing.