Green Hypocrites

This is from www.junkscience.com

Here are green hypocrisy’s top 10 poster children for 2007.

1. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Lifestyle. While the former veep and nouveau-$100 millionaire jets around the world squawking about the “planet having a fever” and demanding that we all lower our standard of living, his own personal electricity use is 20 times the national average, including an indoor pool costing $500/month to heat.

While Gore deflected criticism of his inconvenient electric bill during March congressional testimony by saying he purchased “green” electricity, the truth is, he didn’t start doing so until 2007.

2. Google’s Sky Pig. A photo-op of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin plugging-in a hybrid car was part of the search engine giant’s June announcement promising carbon neutrality by 2008. But how this PR-fluff squares with the so-called “Google party jet” — Page and Brin’s gargantuan personal Boeing 767, which burns about 1,550 gallons/hour — is any one’s guess.

3. RFK Jr. Tilts at Windmills. Outspoken global warming activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently railed against coal-produced electricity because “climate change is the most urgent threat to our collective survival.”

Meanwhile, Kennedy vigorously campaigns against a proposed Cape Cod wind farm that would generate CO2-free electricity because it would “impoverish the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties.” Unmentioned in Kennedy’s tirades, however, is the windmill’s unfortunate proximity to his family’s famed Hyannis Port compound.

4. The U.N.’s ‘Bali High’. Early December will witness 10,000 climateers descending upon the paradisiacal island resort of Bali for the 13th annual U.N. global warming meeting. The reason for much jet and limo travel — and other prodigious greenhouse gas generating activity associated with such a mega-conference — is relatively modest: setting the agenda and timeframe for a post-Kyoto treaty. Sure seems like something that could have been handled in a less carbon-intensive way — either by Internet and video conferencing or, if meeting is necessary, somewhere in North America or Europe where most key attendees are based.

5. Nancy Nukes Nukes. Supposedly concerned that “global warming and energy independence…have profound implications for our nation’s economic competitiveness, national security, environmental quality and public health,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to take the congressional lead on those issues.

So who did Speaker Pelosi pick to chair the committee? None other than long-time nuclear power opponent Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who appeared with anti-nuke celebrities Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne at an October Capitol Hill press conference to denounce legislation promoting the development of ultra-green nuclear power.

6. Every home a Superfund site? “Mercury is highly toxic to everyone, but particularly to children and developing fetuses,” says the activist group Environmental Defense, a long-time campaigner against mercury from power plant emissions and in automobile convenience lighting.

So it came as quite a surprise when the group began advocating that consumers bring the “highly toxic” mercury into their homes in the form of compact fluorescent light bulbs in order to reduce power plant CO2 emissions. CFLs are so hazardous, according to public health officials however, that special safety precautions must be taken for disposal or if the bulbs break.

7. Doesn’t everyone own a NASA scientist? In March 2007, NASA’s climate alarmist-in-chief James Hansen criticized “special interests” campaigning against climate regulation.

“By larding the campaign coffers of numerous politicians, the fossil fuel industry has succeeded in subverting the democratic principle…Until the public indicates sufficient interest, and puts pressure on political systems, special interests will continue to rule.”

Though Hansen poses as a humble civil servant, it recently came to light that his alarmist efforts have been bankrolled by leftist billionaire and MoveOn.org sugar-daddy George Soros. Doesn’t Soros qualify as a “special interest,” Dr. Hansen?

8. Like a Virgin’s Carbon Footprint. London’s Daily Mail reported (“What planet are they on?, July 7) on the climate consciousness of Madonna and other Live Earth performers.

“[T]he pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world… Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tons… the average Briton produces just 10 tons… [her] Confessions tour last year produced 440 tons of carbon pollution in just four months, simply in flights between venues.”

That’s one small footprint for the average Brit, but one giant footprint for celebrity-kind.

9. The NBC Poppycock. NBC-Universal kicked-off of its “Green is Universal” initiative by dimming the studio lights — but not two giant video screens and advertisements — during a break in the Nov. 4 Cowboys-Eagles game.

Candle-lit host Bob Costas then cut to video of Today show personalities Matt Lauer, Al Roker and Ann Curry reporting about climate change from the Arctic, Amazon and Antarctic, respectively. None gave even a nod to the energy-hogging effort required to send them and crews to do such pointless broadcasts from exotic locales.

10. California’s Hypocritenator. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared in June 2005 that, “California will be a leader in the fight against global warming…the time for action is now.”

But just two years later, the Los Angeles Times reported that state efforts had been derailed by the governor’s mismanagement and deceit. Schwarzenegger even fired the state’s chief regulator for refusing to limit the number of greenhouse gas regulations. Columnist Debra Saunders noted that, “Schwarzenegger boasts that he is a world leader in the fight against global warming — but his advocacy shouldn't keep him from flying in private jets or driving a Hummer.”

The one thing these honorees all have in common is that their real-life actions belie their carefully crafted green public images. If they don’t take their commitment seriously, why should you?

Deconstructing "An Inconvenient Truth"

If the Democrats regain power in 2008, they will enact a plethora of policies to stifle the American economy. The Democrats will definitely be on board with the doltish science propagated by Al Gore. I recommend everyone read this article by Mary Ellen Gilder, the daughter of noted technologist and FORBES newsletter partner George Gilder. She did a balanced research on the film, "An Incovenient Truth" and she shows the egregious distortions and falsehoods of Al Gore's movie.

Cut and paste the following link http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm

In Guilder's essay she writes

However, Michael Crichton (best known for his novels but also a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a former postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies) warned his audience of the dangers of "consensus science" in a 2003 speech,

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Michael Crichton is the author of "Jurassic Park", and his latest novel, "State of Fear" shows how absurd the Global Warming myth is. It is a must read.

The consesus continues on Global Warming.

The Washington times (a liberal newspaper) reports on John Lockwood who conducted research in the Library of Congress and found in the Washington Post that in 1922 the Artic was getting warmer (was this pre-C02?). Click and paste the following URL http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063 (I have to figure out how one makes the link clickable instead of the antiquated cut and paste method.)

Scientific consensus not represented by the IPCC, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)cut and paste the following URL

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/august/13/letter4/&c=1

A little more information on Carbon Dioxide (it is less than 4% of the earth's atmosphere) http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

You can win 100,000 dollars

All you have to do is prove Al Gore right. Prove global warming is man-made and you can win 100,000 dollars. All you lefties - get cracking!



Cut and paste this URL address here to enter the contest

http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

Should not be a problem since there is an apparent consenus among Scientists at least according to Al Gore

Everybody - get out your tan lotion - Global warming is coming, but not just yet

Global Warming is coming to a city near you at least after 2009-- http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0837368420070809?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true

Climate experts have long predicted a general warming trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more specific about what is likely to happen in the decade that started in 2005.

To make this kind of prediction, researchers at Britain's Met Office -- which deals with meteorology -- made a computer model that takes into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean and other fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content.
A forecast of the next decade is particularly useful, because climate could be dominated over this period by these natural changes, rather than human-caused global warming, study author Douglas Smith said by telephone.

This reminds me of the financial models we would make during my career as an Accountant. Weeks are spent formulating and revising financial models that forecast next fiscal year's profit and loss, then budget meetings take place. As the CFO and other principals ponder the numbers on said budget, they determine that profitability needs to be increased. In a flurry to meet budget requirements, we begin to revise our models. Assumptions are changed; a variable is changed here and a variable is changed there and voila - we have now reached our profitability goals. CFO is satisfied. Nevermind that the profit goals we set out for ourselfs are unattainable - if worse comes to worse, we will adjust the financials to meet set criteria at the end of the fiscal year.

Auditors will ask questions, and we always have the right answers.

With all the grants needed to come up with a global warming scenario, I wonder what assumptions, the so-called climatologists need to change to reach their predetermined conclusions? Hmmm - Am I being too presumptious? maybe a bit skeptical?

Let's have a global warming pool, (something like a football pool), and we can make bets on whether their predictions are accurate, especially given the fact we can't seem to predict the weather more than a week in advance.

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide

The sages of the Global Warming Swindle have somehow determined that we have until 2009 before things start heating up. There are people who really believe this stuff. That is what's incredible.

Senator Inhofe got it right -

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264308

More for all you lefties here
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

For more check out Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/

Why is the left so gullible?

And the Winner Is... August 5th GOP debate

Whose idea was it to have a GOP debate at 8:00 AM in the morning? - And on a Sunday morning. Doesn't anyone know Republicans go to church? There must have been a total of two people watching it, maybe three. I was one of them. In fact, I woke up exactly at 8:00 AM; I turned over, grabbed the remote and turned on the television. My wife didn’t even wake up – so that was good, because she would have told me to turn it off. I am sure, in the next few days, we will hear various sound bytes from the debate, and most people will say “What debate?”

Was it just my impression that the GOP debate doesn’t come off as quite as silly as the Democratic debate. I mean we saw no Snowman talking about global warming, and no crazed lunatic with an AK-47. I actually thought George Stephanopoulos did a good job moderating. ABC only showed three videos in the entire debate as opposed to all the half-witted questions posed by the Youtubers in the Democratic debate. I was very disappointed my question was not posed which had made the first cut on i-caught. But I guess when the network only shows three videos, chances are slim they will choose yours.

I digress. So, why is global warming such a hot (no pun intended) topic with the Democrats and not a hot topic with Republicans (it wasn’t even mentioned.) The reason is this – Global warming is a fraud. Here is the question I posed which made it in ABC's first cut.



Some other frauds which have been perpetrated, and have been found out to be frauds from the Democratic side of the aisle

Paul Ehrlich – The population bomb http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/people/paul-ehrlich/

Global Cooling - http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Eugenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I would add to the list evolution, but I won’t. I will stop with the few I mentioned.

Back to the debate -

I understand the American people want change. Change to me is returning to our conservative principles. Bush was never and has never been a true conservative albeit he is better than anything the Democrats have ever had to offer. When you watch the Democratic debate and then the Republican debate, is there any question that the Republicans would continue to grow the economy and continue the war on terror? The Democrats talk about raising taxes and withdrawing from Iraq, (a defeatist approach). They have yet to take “Economics 101” to see why raising taxes stifles growth (they should just make a trip to Europe), and the Democrats also fail to understand that if we were to withdraw from Iraq, the enemy would look at it as a victory, and such a perceived defeat would only embolden radical Islam. As Guliani pointed out, the Democrats don’t even mention “Islamic terrorism.” I will feel much safer with the Republicans in power.

And what is that guy with the first two names again Paul Ron, Ron Paul still doing on the podium. He talks like a Democrat, and he must have used the word neocon about 100 times. Have you ever noticed that when sites such as the drudge report create a poll asking who won the GOP debate, Ron Paul is always the winner http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 . As of this writing, he has over 17,000 votes on the Drudge Report with Mitt Romney second at under 3000 votes.. It happened in the last debate on KSFO’s Melanie Morgan’s website too. I can say that Ron Paul has one thing going for him. He has a loyal following that just sits at the computer all day and votes for him. I think Ron Paul’s disciples need a life.

I don’t think abortion is going to be much of an issue this go round, but I do think Mitt Romney needs to get a better answer. I thought Brownback and Romney were going to have a fist fight over Romney’s change of position on the issue of abortion. Romney didn’t defend his position very well, and later in the debate, he said he felt the one area he thought he made a mistake was when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, he was pro-choice. It left me the impression that he was always pro-life, but he only changed his position for political reasons. I wonder if anyone else had the same impression.

Tancredo actually wanted to blow up Mecca and Medina. All I can say is this – if we didn’t have the entire Muslim world gunning for us now, we would after we blew up the two most holiest shrines in the Muslim world. And that came from a candidate other than Ron Paul. I thought Ron Paul was the only wacko up there – I guess not.

When Thompson was done speaking about breast cancer, it sounded like his entire family had it. If that is true, it is definitely a tragedy, but when he then said he would cure breast cancer by 2010, he just sounded like an idiot.

Last week, Obama handed Hillary the Democratic nomination when he said he would withdraw from Iraq, talk to our enemies and invade our allies, which means he would invade another sovereign nation. I thought invading sovereign nations was anathema to the Democrats. I wasn’t sure at first if Guliani agreed with Obama, but he sure didn’t make it clear. Mitt Romney was able to explain why Obama’s position was just plain ridiculous. Will Obama lose his star power now? Will he get booed by the Daily Kos? One can only wait and see.

Why is it that in every other presidential election, I knew who I was going to vote for from the start and why. But, with this current crop of candidates, it is still a tossup. McCain is not even a blip on my screen. Guliani is the one I am looking at albeit somewhat reluctantly. He is also the one I thought who won the debate.

Live Earth - The Gore Campaign

So I have to admit. I watched Live Earth, not so much for its messianic overtones, but because I liked the music. I think Shakira, Madonna and many others are actually very good entertainers. Enter stage left, the messiah of Global Warming and the man who has been responsible for propagating much of the Global Warming myth today. Much has past since the days Al Gore invented the Internet. Al Gore even so much admitted that Live Earth left the biggest Carbon footprint to date. He admitted Live Earth was the biggest concert in history.

Al Gore wants us to believe that Global Warming is not political. I would ask him to try this experiment. Take a group of people, and ask those who believe that Global Warming is caused by human activity to step to one side. Those who do not believe Global Warming is caused by human activity to step to the other side. Then, ask those who are liberal to raise their hands. I would surmise that only the ones on the side that hold the belief that Global Warming is caused by human activity will be the ones who raise their hands.

Al Gore revealed his seven points to reduce CO2 emissions as follows- my comments in italics:

• Demand that my country join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth. (So how about China. China is not part of the Kyoto Protocol and the country has surpassed the United States in CO2 emissions)

• Take personal action to help solve the climate crises by reducing my own C02 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral”. (Like the concert which you just put on or your private jets.)

• Fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the C02. (So does that mean you will support the cleanest form of energy nuclear plants)

• Work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation.

• Fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal. (Ethanol is another fraud)

• Plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests. (Just planted one)

• Buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crises and building a sustainable, just and prosperous world for the 21st century. (I don’t think so)

In today’s San Jose Mercury http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6326257?nclick_check=1 we find what a mess Governor Schwarzenegger has made of California with his new Green agenda which in part reads.

"This is about California politicians wanting to be leaders in alternative energy. They just jump on whatever is sexy. Right now, it's ethanol," said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute, which is working with the administration to reduce greenhouse gases. "However, ethanol, particularly from corn, is not a likely fuel source for California."

Part of the problem is that ethanol is made largely from corn in the Midwest and has to be hauled in from out of state in gas-guzzling tankers or diesel-powered trains. That alone nearly cancels its clean-air benefits in California.

The state is pressing ahead anyway. In fact, after responding to a series of document and interview requests from the Mercury News, the state is now trying to speed up its ethanol-fueling timetable. The General Services Department is planning to open a competitive bid next month for companies that can provide E85 - the blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline the state's flex-fuel vehicles are designed to use - to a single station a few blocks from the Capitol.

That is only part of the problem – sounds like the MTBE debacle all over again.

Here is my solution. I believe we need to be energy independent not because of Global Warming, but because currently we are sending petrodollars to countries who have but one desire – our demise.

 Begin constructing Nuclear Plants, the cleanest form of energy

 Look for oil at home. We have plenty of it, but the environmental wackos prevent us from drilling for it.

 Change the speed limit back to 55 mph, that will save a lot of energy

 Look for viable alternative sources of energy (not those that are politically correct like Ethanol)

I already use the energy efficient light bulbs because they save money, but those hybrids are a joke unless you want to spend way more than the car is worth. Make a car that is comparable to the current cars on the road then I will think about it.

Al Gore for president - I don't think so

The Republican party torn asunder?

In a complete about face, Bush is now trying to appease the left by embracing the myth of global warming

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azDnIuQABog8&refer=worldwide

Should I say Hello Arnold?

And Al Gore must be correct, he says that there is a consensus among scientists on Global Warming. Read here Nasa's top scientist Michael Griffin questons Global Warming http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1 Oh no! That is like questioning the second coming to the Global Warming religious fanatics. What heresy! Will Griffin be fired from Nasa? Sounds like a consensus to me.

What is going on here? Ok, Bush got the economy going by decreasing taxes, he correctly and steadfastly fights the war on terror - congratulations, but...

1) His prosecution of the war has been dubious at best. He fights the war as if we are playing tiddly winks. The benefit of the doubt always goes to the terrorist.

2) He lambasts his base for being against a massive amnesty plan. He thinks his base is full of idiots. if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. He says trust the government to secure the borders - we've done that. He is offering the Mexican-Americans citizenship, and what do they do, they boo Miss USA. Bush is destroying the Republican party. Any proposal by Kennedy and La Raza should be suspect anyway. Imagine a party of White Americans called, "The Race." Even the New York Times reported Bush's disdain for his own Republican party -

President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.
“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia’s southeastern corner. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.”

This amnesty bill is our answer to 9/11?


3) He signs into law a massive medicare drug plan when medicare is already going bankrupt.

4) He signs the McCain-Feingold finance reform bill which has turned out to be a bonanza for the left, the corrupt George Soros and moveon.org.

5) His loyalty to those who work for him is so strong, he refuses to fire anyone who proves to be incompetent (i.e. Mineta)

6) His spending has been out of control (even without Iraq). Reagan tripled the deficit, but Reagan's purpose was to bankrupt the Soviet Union which he successfully did. There is no point to Bush's spending.

I believe that going to war with Iraq was a necessary evil. To this day, I believe there were WMDs in Iraq. Hussein had eight months to get rid of them, and even if he didn't have them, the plans were there to reconstitute them.

Mr President, there is a reason your poll numbers are low. Get it through your head, the left will always hate you. What is next? - A private screening of Michael Moore's Movie Sicko.

We need someone to give back the power to the people and return us to the conservative movement from whence we began.

Today's wallstreet journal opinion piece by Peggy Noonan is a must read.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010148

In part Noonan writes

What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future

I have a liberal friend who always says, "Bush is an idiot!!" Was she right? My fear is Bush has opened such a wide chasm, the Democrats will regain the white house and then we will all be in trouble.

Mr. President, if the Democrats win in 2008, it will be your fault. You are a neo-liberal, and you have abandoned conservative values.

Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.

“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”


Well, considering it takes 2.1 people to just maintain current population levels, Europe needs much higher levels than that to support their massive welfare system. But Europe is on its way to extinction. Their current levels are way below that around 1.7 in Britain while Muslims are propagating at the rate of 7 to 1. The left's delusional mindset continues to believe global warming is the greater threat while Muslims clandestinely Islamize Europe.

It doesn't take a genius to know that comparing the Muslim birthrate in Europe to the rest of Europe's birthrate to figure out what Europe will become. The only good news coming from Europe is Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy won France's presidential election. This could bode well for the United states, and France could once again become an ally of the United States.

I guess the French realize their mass immigration from North Africa is not doing them any good, and their massive welfare system is bankrupting the country. The French seemed to realize the left is bad for the country. Mexico realized the same thing.

My fear now is the United States won't realize it in the coming elections, and it is Bush's fault, but if the left takes over here - God Help Us!