Posted on 09/24/2006 5:34:36 AM PDT by conservativecorner
LIMOUSINE liberals, move over. You've been out-glammed by Lear Jet liberals who burn beaucoup fossil fuels in the sky as they soar around the planet fighting global warming.
Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York City. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meeting that has it all -- the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Bill Clinton.
You see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush because they support the Kyoto global-warming pact, which they believe would save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it. (Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably because senators voted 95-0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that exempted China and India.)
Forget that Kyoto has the depth of a cowboy movie set. The storefronts look like a general store and saloon, but when actors walk through the door, there's nothing there. The overwhelming majority of industrialized nations that signed on to Kyoto amid much fanfare haven't cut their greenhouse gases. In June, the United Nations reported that only two Western European signatories -- Britain and Sweden -- are on target to meet their greenhouse-gas reduction targets, which call for a worldwide reduction of 5 percent below 1990 levels in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Back in the 70's, it was warning of a coming "ice age".....Can't you people make up your minds, if you had minds.....Most hardships brought on since mankind made footprints on this planet were caused by COLD weather, not NOT!
God, in His infinite wisdom, created this world, and all that inhabit it. I know there is no one here smarter than Him....
Bring it on. Frost in the Upper Penisula of Michigan, snow in Colorado. Have these tree huggers figured out that the warmer it will be getting (allegedly), the less fuel will be burnt?
And here's a goody From the BBC...
This is a classic "good news-bad news" story.
Biofuels - made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter - may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so.
Consider the following:
The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year.
Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving.
If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind.
Meeting the 5.75% biofuel target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land.
Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol.
Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year.
Little wonder that many are calling biofuels "deforestation diesel", the opposite of the environmentally friendly fuel that all are seeking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm
Just terrific! Mankind dreamed of flying for thousands of years. Now these yahoos have decided that the greatest advance of the 20th century is bad for some trumped up construct they call the enviornment. On a carbon based planet they are all hung up on a bogus carbon footprint, as if there could be any other kind.
The new liberal salve for events like this will make you laugh. I was looking at the come on for a cruise for people who read the commie rag "The Nation". Included in the cost of the cruise was like an $11 enviro surcharge. The punters are told that those $11 will cover the cost of planting trees in Costa Rica and that those trees will balance out the C02 emitted by the activities related to the cruise.
I don't know whether to characterize that as sad or funny. And the chances that the money actually makes it into the ground in the form of trees? It's gotta be approaching zero - probably makes it into the pocket of some enviro-scamster stateside or perhaps into some Costa Rican plantation owner. But then even if it did become trees - so effin what?
It's both sad and funny. But the money did what it was intended to do--it gave a bunch of liberals the illusion that they were doing something really important, and it made them feel good about themselves. That's what it's all about for them. They don't care if they really solve a problem, just as long as they are perceived to be doing something so they'll look good, and so they will feel good about themselves.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Question: Assuming that the carbon that is being "turned" into CO2 was here when the planet was created, why the concern about CO2 now? Has Earth received more carbon from space? What's the big deal. Mankind is merely releasing the carbon "stored" underground in fossil fuels, which plants convert to oxygen and sugar. The oceans of the world produce 30 times the CO2 mankind does from fossil fuels.
Let's look at "global warming" from a layman's scientific knowledge.
1. Plants THRIVE in a CO2 rich environment. This means that not only would plants grow faster, but there would be more of them, consuming more CO2.
2. The greatest hardships to mankind were caused by COLDER than normal temperatures, not warmer. With warmer temperatures, growing seasons would be longer, and the zone in which food is grown would be expanded.
3. An increase in global temperatures would REDUCE our need to burn fossil fuels in the winter to keep warm.
4. Increased temperatures would increase evaporation from lakes and oceans, increasing cloud cover. Water vapor in the atmosphere is a very reflective particulate, which would reflect the sun's heat back into space. Once the earth cools, the clouds condense and rain back to the surface.
I'm sure there are more reasons to debunk global warming, feel free to expand on this....
Some health nuts note that there is less oxygen and more COS than there used to be. We need the oxygen. Burning uses oxygen and releases co2. To restore the balance, you must plant trees (or corn to make ethanol :)
Last time I checked, it was still at 21%, same as it has been for the 47 years of my life.
I would ask for them to cite their sources, but they would just link to some loony leftist pseudo scientific chatroom/blog/report....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.