This is funny. Al Gore’s newest boat, “Bio-Solar One,” supposedly will run on biofuels such as ethanol (which, as you know from some of my past articles, isn’t that environmentally friendly in its current state). The funny thing about this is the lake its located on only has regular GASOLINE. Ironic? I think so.
-
Click here for more
David Dilley, who is a climate researcher with Global Weather Oscillations and firm believer that the moon will bring about global cooling, predicts that the El Niño this year will be the strongest one seen in the past decade.
Meteorologist and climate researcher David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations Inc. (GWO) says a recurring gravitational cycle called the “Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) for climate”, will act like a magnet and cause the South Pacific high pressure center to be pulled out of its normal location in October and November, setting the stage for a moderate to strong El Nio to form in December.
(…)
Mr. Dilley says the PFM gravitational cycle that controls the formation of an El Nio peaks approximately every 4 years, and it will again peak during this September into January. As this occurs, the tropical South Pacific Ocean and atmospheric winds will respond rapidly and cause the formation of a moderate to strong El Nio by Christmas. This will likely be the strongest El Nio in over 10 years, and cause disruptions in weather patterns during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere, and summer months in the Southern hemisphere.
The technology used in forecasting the upcoming El Nio is the same used for predicting the natural cycles of global warming and cooling. PFM gravitational cycles pull the atmosphere’s high pressure systems northward or southward by as much as 3 or 5 degrees of latitude from their normal seasonal positions.
These cycles correspond nearly 100 percent with the last 24 moderate to strong El Nio occurrences since 1914, and with global warming cycles that recur approximate every 230 years, and mega global warming cycles that occur every 116,000 years. Additional information on the El Nio and the peer reviewed computer e-Book “Global Warming – Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found” is available at http://www.globalweathercycles.com.
When it refers to “El Nio” in this article, it’s the exact same as El Niño as far as I can tell.
I was perusing Barack Obama’s Environmental Fact Sheet when I stumbled on this paragraph and just decided to point some of the ironies that it presents.
Reduce Health Risks Caused by Mercury Pollution: More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood and approximately 630,000 newborns are born every year at risk. The EPA estimates that every year, more than one in six children could be at risk for developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother’s womb. Barack Obama fought a Bush administration rule that would have imposed very weak emissions reductions on utilities, delaying meaningful reductions in power plant mercury emissions for another two decades. Recognizing that one major cause of mercury also comes through the air from across the oceans, particularly from China, Obama introduced legislation to ban the export of elemental mercury, and he successfully pressured the U.S. Department of Energy to stop its proposed sale of large quantities of mercury to companies overseas. Obama also introduced legislation to phase out the use of mercury in the manufacture of chlorine.
(…)
As president, Barack Obama will continue his fight, begun as a community organizer, to protect our children from health hazards and developmental disabilities caused by environmental toxins, such as lead, mercury, particulate matter, and industrial land waste. Obama will fight to clean brownfields, restore abandoned industrial riverfront sites, and give communities the tools they need to eat healthy foods and expand livable, walkable neighborhoods.
Why is this ironic? Well, for one, he is a big fan of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs(CFL’s), ranking it among solar panels and wind turbines that other countries use as “clean” technologies (page 5) and supporting a phase out of incandescent bulbs (page 7).
It turns out that these CFL bulbs, contain mercury, the very substance he is railing about in the above paragraph. This means that upon breaking a CFL, one has to basically follow a hazardous waste procedure to remove the broken pieces from your house.
I don’t know about you but I have broken quite a few light bulbs and up until this point all I have had to worry about is getting cut by a piece of glass. Now, Obama wants to forcefully put a source of mercury, a chemical that he even admits is dangerous, into our homes. This sure sounds like he is increasing our children’s risk of coming in contact with mercury, not “protecting” them from it.
Oh, and another ironic thing, ALL Compact Fluorescent Bulbs are made in China, the very place where Barack Obama is worried about mercury coming from. See this speech by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) for more information about this (At 4:00 for China part).
Oh Obama, so many inconsistencies, so little time.
UPDATE (7/31/08): Looks like there is an alternative to CFL’s that will still cut down on energy costs. Huh. Who knew?
Bjorn Lomborg, author of “Cool It” and “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, will be attending the American Legislative Exchange Council’s National Forum in Chicago. If you have the credentials to get in, I would go and hear him speak.
-
Click Here for Story
I found these graphs in an article on the Wall Street Journal talking about how “Energy is Top Economic Issue for Voters“. The top two graphs aren’t all that surprising but the bottom two I did find interesting. Pay attention to the 1980 mark in both of them and compare it to the 2008 mark. In the bottom left graph, you can easily see that the price change in the late 70s had a much larger impact to the consumption than anything after it.Now look at the bottom right graph. Consumers were paying a larger percent of the income for gasoline in the late 70s and early 80s than they are currently.
What does this mean? Well it would suggest, at least to me, that over the past twenty-some years Americans as a whole have increased their wealth (as your wealth increases, gasoline payments will take an increasingly smaller portion of your income). This has happened even with inflation. This is good news because with increased wealth, people are better able to cope with changes and unforeseen circumstances might occur.
However, the trend is going up so obviously there will come a point when we are paying the same percentage of our income on gasoline as was being paid a little over 25 years ago. Another thing that must be kept in mind is that these graphs don’t take into account what rising fuel costs do to all other commodities (like food for instance). Even with this in mind, I do feel that it is promising to look and these graphs and see that the increase in the price of gasoline hasn’t affected our consumption all that much or dug into our wallets any more than previous times. This is a positive since the implications mean that as a whole, our society has become more well off.
Now what are some negative implications of these graphs? Well they will probably make the environmentalist and pro-AGW (Anthropological Global Warming) crowd fairly angry, especially the bottom left graph. You see, these high prices we are experiencing are supposed to, in part, curb our consumption of gasoline. They have to some extent but not nearly as much as seen at previous times. This will only fuel (no pun intended) the Green’s desire to see higher prices in order to influence our consumption habits.
New taxes and restrictions on drilling are two ways the Greens may try to influence our consumption to make a dip like that seen in 1979 happen today. Watch out.
It looks like the ‘green’ democrats at their ‘green’ convention won’t have to pay taxes on the gas they buy during the DNC in Denver, CO. Take a look.
You know that conservatives are in trouble when people are actually debating whether Barack Obama or John McCain will be the better ‘green’. Take a look:
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/uselections2008.barackobama
It seems that the environmentalists are grasping at anything to peg on global warming with the latest being a study suggesting global warming will cause more kidney stones. Since it seems that environmentalists are running out of ideas of how to scare people, I have decided to lend a helping hand. Here are some of my ideas that environmentalists can use to scare people with:
I mean, if we are going to pretend that kidney stones (which the article itself states can largely be solved by drinking more liquids) are a major problem associated with global warming, the ones I listed above aren’t too far fetched either.
What are some of your ideas that Environmentalist can use to jump aboard the Global Warming Hysteria bandwagon?
Its always fun to see what kind of misinformation people are willing to disseminate in order to further the global warming alarmists’ agenda. This time, it seems that the AD Council is teaming up with Environmental Defense in a series of online ads (this one I got from Digg.com) that present the readers with these two choices: Leave air pollution unchecked or fight global warming (Click on thumbnail below).
Oh, so Environmental Defense is fighting to prevent us from spewing noxious chemical pollutants into the air that are somehow causing global warming, right? Sadly, that’s not what they are referring here. It’s all about our good friend, Carbon Dioxide.
Honestly people, pollution? Is that what we are now calling CO2? According to my definition, pollution is the “introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.” In my book, CO2 doesn’t really fit that definition since the environment emits 30x more carbon dioxide than humans do(180 billion tons versus 6 billion tons). So the environment is now polluting itself, is that what Environmental Defense is implying?
This whole trying to make people link CO2 with pollution and making them think that human produced CO2 is different than natural CO2 is absolutely outrageous.
Anthropologically produced CO2 and naturally produced CO2 are identical molecules. An anthropologically produced CO2 molecule has no different affect on the environment than any naturally produced one. And you know what CO2 does in the environment? It’s essential for plants to grow. In fact, the increase in this “pollution” that we (and the environment mind you) are emitting into the atmosphere has actually been attributed to an increase in plant growth (page 8 & 9).
Now that doesn’t seem very “harmful” to the environment, does it?
