pretty good.
The idea that we're not all going to die soon due to global warming is not going to sit well with the world. I'm not sure why that is, but it's true.
This guy doesn't "get" it.
Kyoto is setup so carbon emissions limits won't be met, thereby making the carbon trading markets viable.
It's about trading carbon credits, moving money overseas, moving money from corps to overseas assets wherein board members have undisclosed ownership interests, "elegant" financial derivatives, lobbying govts. for higher carbon allotments than smaller businesses can lobby for, et.c etc.
The core is carbon credit trading. The rest is just distractionary tactics.
"Offsets are crucial, we can't do this without offsets."
--Al Gore
I wonder why it's called Greenland.
The last Michael Crichton book "State of Fear" is a must for those to think maybe, just maybe, the media and government types have overdone it on global warming and there might be a more rational approach.
Why Kyoto was a bust to begin with:
"World coal demand is expected to increase by nearly 70% from 1995 to 2020.10 If current trends continue, China and India are expected to account for 85% of that increase. During that same period, coal's share of total energy consumption falls only 1 percentage point, from 25% to 24% (see Figure 2), and holds steady at 36% of fuels used for electricity generation.11 The world annual energy consumption growth rate is predicted to be 4% for coal, 8.6% for natural gas, and 6% for oil over the same 25-year period.
China's percentage of world coal consumption has risen from 17% in 1980 to 29% in 1995, and is forecasted to climb to 37% by 2020, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).12 China is banking on its huge coal reserves to help power its future economic growth, even though the projected rapid rise in coal demand will require enormous amounts of infrastructure to deliver energy to end-users. China is relying heavily on foreign investors for much of this needed capital.13"
Simple solution to global warming, that Gore will never admit to:
http://www.npcil.nic.in/nupower_vol12_4/indis_role1n.htm
Nuclear power
Just because we may not die from Global Warming, does nothing to diminish the possibility that we will die from something.
Is it just me or is the left as well as the MSM completely abandoning the truth in favor of the "fake but accurate" mantra.
Whether it's AP or Rather or the Global warming cult they all seem perfectly comfortable playing fast and loose with the facts in order to support a "higher calling".
In a word, fiction.
Al (ok to lie and scare people) Gore..........
Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
A: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. -Al Gore
"And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation."
2/3rds of CO2 comes from power plants of various types, 50% in electrical utilities, most of that from coal.
5899 million metric tons in 2005 total from all uses.
1900 million metric tons from transportation.
Electrical generation was 2245 million metric tons in 1999. 1787 million metric tons from coal.
By shifting electricity generation from coal / fossil fuel plants to nuclear power plants, we can reduce the US emissions by 50% and end the 'threat' of our CO2 emissions creating a serious concern.
By further leveraging nuclear-base electricity as an energy source for transportation (think plug-in hybrid), we can further reduce CO2 emissions by another 50%.
For CO2 generation numbers, see :
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/carbon.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec12_5.pdf
Decades ago, socialists all across the globe realized that in order to keep their lame governments propped up, they needed to extract dollars from the "evil american capitalists"..............non-profits, foreign aid, International Monentary Fund, World Bank, United Nations, etc., etc., etc., etc.................add carbon credits to the very long list......
I believe it was on Hannitty today, that the scare in the seventies was of global cooling.
The big concern at that time was that food would be more difficult to grow, and there would be famine across the land.
Now that the climate crisis du jour is global warming, does that mean that food will be easier to grow?
I haven't heard anyone address this, but the answer is yes. Increased carbon dioxide and increased temperature leads to increased water vapor which results in increased precipitation, and better crop yields in a longer growing season.
The answer to the panickers is simple: "I'm not worried about global warming; it means more food!"
bump
Thanks for the ping.