Posted on 08/18/2007 6:27:20 AM PDT by george76
Though Austin Chronicle writer Robert Bryce is likely not a household name, his column published in Thursday's Energy Tribune is a must-read for all anthropogenic global warming skeptics.
In "Al Gore's Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense," Bryce not only skewered the Global Warmingist in Chief's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth," but he also deliciously mocked all the sycophant devotees of the former vice president that have failed to recognize the obvious as they tour the country professing imminent planetary doom at the hands of a naturally occurring gas that happens to be a necessity to all forms of life.
With that in mind, Bryce marvelously began with one of the world's greatest truisms (emphasis added throughout):
It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it's the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it.
Honestly, have you ever heard any statement that better describes this whole debate?
Fortunately, Bryce wasn't even warmed up yet:
Here's my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that's harsh criticism. But it's the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: "In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."
This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore's movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie - including, particularly, Gore himself - paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, "Hey, what about breathing? Don't we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?"
The answer, is yes, we do. Thus, by including the claim that you can "reduce your carbon emissions to zero" the film's producers might as well have hung a sign around Gore's neck that says "I'm an idiot."
Does that mean all of the folks that are buying Gore's snake oil must also be wearing such a sign around their necks?
Regardless of the answer, the reader is encouraged to review the entire piece for more chuckles.
Al Gore’s rants make cents to him. Lots of cents as in $.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
Well, no.
I am not a biological expert, by any means, but I believe one of the gases of decomposition is CO2; as is carbon released in the recycling of all mammals.
Matter can be neither created nor destroyed (on earth).
Others are trying to make cents of al gores rants also.
http://www.nfu.org/issues/environment/carbon-credits/
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902553.html
Gaia’s on her death bed and it is deniers and greed-mongers like you who put her there; I can’t get out of here soon enough to suit me.
The next guaranteed foolproof criminal defense!
I'll get the popcorn.
After all, second hand smoke and global warming are the most pressing threats to earth in existence!
I interpreted from the full system perspective. If a human's carbon consumption exceeds his total emissions, that human is a carbon sink. Vice versa, that human is a carbon source (emitter).
See post 88 (probably directly above).
Since plants take in carbon through their leaves and not their roots the carbon must have come from the air for the plant to grow.
More significant, in my view, is the further proof that one can be educated beyond one's intelligence.
Just saying.
I figgered you'd notice. But the point remains (as I tried to state above). If our net carbon intake is higher than our output (in all forms), we are a sink, not a source, and only sources are net carbon emitters.
Maybe we should encapsulate all dead people in vitreous insoluble material, like nuclear waste, and store them in a huge underground cavern in Utah?
New Tagline!!!! Thanks Robert Bryce!
don’t these people ever go away?
no... not till room temperature sets in anyway. 8^)
But how did it get into solid ground ? By being in the atmosphere, absorbed by plants, which then died, were buried and compressed into rocks.
That might be true until a person stops growing. I would imagine that to continue to eat and consume food and breath would be a net carbon polluter since you continue to need food. The waste gasses alone would have to be enough to make one carbon positive. Add to that the solid waste and the gas it produces.
Also, unless you use no energy such as electricity or gas or oil you would have to add that to your carbon output.
It's still probably the most uninformed statement I have read regarding carbon neutrality.
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.