Say it ain't so...

But it is.



Scientists pull an about face on global warming


By Lorne Gunter, For The Calgary Herald September 19, 2009



Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.
Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.
When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

"How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.

In the past year, two other groups of scientists--one in Germany, the second in the United States--have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume.

But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

My point is they cannot. It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National Post.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald




So... when does something become a consensus opinion? How many scientists make a "consensus opinion"?

When do we say that the science is undeniable and can no longer be debated? And what if the guys who said it begin debating with their original science that is "undeniable"? Is it then open for debate again?

Because at this point we have THREE scientific groups, including contributors to the IPCC report, who are all saying that we are going through GLOBAL COOLING not global warming.

When can we consider the IPCC report to have been in error?

And if these guys keep getting it wrong time and again when they make claims about global cooling, why are we still even listening to them on the subject?

Gee, it took them long enough. Doesn't this put a damper on Obama's UN speech today? Doubtful, the "consensus opinion" will remain political, not scientific.

I haven't seen Algore in a while...

I wonder if he's having one of his Goregasms over this. After all, if global warming turns out to have been in error, he stands to lose a pretty penny in public appearance and speaking engagement money and residuals from his flop of a documentary. Not to mention all those carbon credits he paid a pretty penny for that will suddenly become worthless.

Elliot

Gee considering this has been one of the coolest summers Ohio has ever had it would not surprise me that the earth is cooling and not warming. Guess the politicians made enough money out of the warming racket and now they're going to go after the cooling racket instead. So what else is new?

Back to another ice age (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html)?

Back to another ice age (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html)?

Thirty years ago they were predicting an ice age, twenty years ago they began predicting warming it all comes from examining statistics on a short term time scale. If you examine ice core samples spanning geological time scales what you find is "short" periods of high temperature followed by long periods of low temperature so the probability is that the scientists predicting warming from carbon dioxide are wrong

here are two pieces of recent analysis that show the conundrum if you focus on locally gathered data.

A 30,000-year Record Of Sea Surface Temperatures Off South Australia (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801173805.htm)

Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm)

So it seems possible we can see cooling in north America and warming elsewhere even all the scenarios might even operate at the same time but remember we are talking short term

The nanny statist speaks .

Speaking about climate change /global warming /cooling /warming /cooling /warming
/cooling /warming /cooling /... etc Energy Czar Steven Chu (or is he a Secretary ? Hard to tell them apart) said at a Washington conference
"The American public . . . just like your teenage kids, aren't acting in a way that they should act,"..... "The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is."

Evidently they really believe this.

The EPA is in full court press in alliance with the the Parent Teacher Organization on a 6000 school blitz to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.
09/17/2009: EPA Launches Fall Tour to Help Americans Fight Climate Change and Save Money (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/fb4e2d1b681bbde08525763400535c12?OpenDocument)
If the parents are acting like a bunch a teenagers perhaps the teanagers ,indoctrinated sufficiently enough ,will be the adults.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson basically said the whole thing will be painless .

My response is Chu has no clue... and neither does Jackson My guess is that painless is a relative term. The Treasury Dept in a Friday afternoon news dump released a report that admits that Waxman-Markey will cost $300 billion annually .
Breaking News: Treasury Admits Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually | CEI (http://cei.org/news-release/2009/09/18/breaking-news-treasury-admits-global-warming-cap-and-trade-costs-could-hit-3)


Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
(C.S. Lewis)

I wonder if China and India are going to give Obama a "cool" reception over global warming ;)


G&P

My response is Chu has no clue....

Yep, Chu has no clue (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/americans-children-398787.html). He didn't know oil had something to do with the Energy Dept, which failed its own energy savings audit and which is on a 6000 school propaganda tour.

Wait a minute, everyone. Don't worry. The Anointed One, the Great Messiah himself has spoken. We're saved!! According to a speech he gave yesterday, the use of fossil fuels in the USA over the past 8 months is the lowest it's been in decades... and it's all due to HIS policies.

Never mind that we're in a recession, wherein fewer goods are being produced and less fuel is therefore being used by industry. It's all HIS doing.

Well, yeah, if you consider the fact that the recession is proceeding longer than it should have is due to his policies, then yes, it is all his doing.

Elliot

Hello Elliot:

I don't know whether throwing trash into the air causes warming, cooling or monkeys to rain down upon you. But I DO know it can't be good. You?? I think you think we should continue to do it. It's good for business, you know.

Wouldn't that kind of be like a death panel? You know, YOUR side deciding that we should die because YOUR side thinks poisoning our only atmosphere is just fine and dandy? I think it IS. Yup, you got DEATH PANELS going on.

excon

Pertinent to the situation in California where the spiggot was shut off from the farmers was Chu's comments that he was looking at a day when agriculture in California dies.
http://tag.admeld.com/ad/iframe/51/reutersus/728x90/ros?t=1253714841189&url=http%3A//www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5135OY20090205 (http://tag.admeld.com/ad/iframe/51/reutersus/728x90/ros?t=1253714841189&url=http%3A//www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5135OY20090205)

The most quick way to ensure that self fulfilling prophesy would be to cut them off from their water supply .

Hello Elliot:

I dunno whether throwing trash into the air causes warming, cooling or monkeys to rain down upon you. But I DO know it can't be good. You??? I think you think we should continue to do it. It's good for business, you know.

Wouldn't that kinda be like a death panel?? You know, YOUR side deciding that we should die because YOUR side thinks poisoning our only atmosphere is just fine and dandy?? I think it IS. Yup, you got DEATH PANELS going on.

excon

I'm glad you posted this.

You see, there's about as much proof for global warming and global cooling as there is for monkeys raining down on us.

I haven't seen any monkeys.

I haven't seen any global warming or global cooling either.

And I have absolutely NO IDEA what "throwing garbage" into the air has.

Neither do you. Any claim to the contrary is just a guess.

I do know that CARBON, which has been named a pollutant, is one of the more beneficial and necessary elements for life.

I do know that METHANE, which has been named a pollutant, is one of the more beneficial and necessary elements for life.

And I know that calling things that are necessary and beneficial to life "pollutants" is a dumb thing to do. And ACTIVELY trying to eliminate those things is downright suicidal.

NONE of that precludes the idea of being as clean as possible when producing new goods or just going about our lives. But the argument that not doing so is going to destroy the world is ridiculous. And THAT is the point.

Elliot

And I know that calling things that are necessary and beneficial to life "pollutants" is a dumb thing to do. And ACTIVELY trying to eliminate those things is downright suicidal.Hello again, El:

Of course, someone who thinks that "pollutants", don't "pollute", but instead are "beneficial to life", would believe that eliminating them would be suicide...

Fortunately for the world, only the tin hat crowd is drinking THAT koolaid. I'm glad you posted too.

excon

Excon,

Do you seriously think that methane and carbon are pollutants?

No wonder you are stuck on global warming. You've fallen for their schtick.

Not surprising... most people with a public-school science education think the same thing as you do. But I thought you knew better. My mistake...

Elliot

Get this, in the UK you could get your pay docked if you exceed your carbon ration (http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachPressRelease.aspx?cid=24309&codi=70369&lr=1)...


Launch of first UK employee carbon ration scheme
Source: Envido
Sep. 16, 2009

The UK’s first employee carbon ration scheme to reduce individual carbon emissions is launched, reports Envido.

WSP has launched the UK’s first employee carbon rationing scheme that is aimed to monitor employees’ personal carbon emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights. People who emit more than their ration of carbon emissions are having their pay docked in a trial that could lead to carbon emission rationing schemes being reintroduced via the workplace.

After the trial demonstrated the effectiveness of fining people for exceeding their personal carbon emissions target, employees are required to submit quarterly carbon emission reports detailing their carbon consumption. Workers who take a long-haul flight are likely to be fined for exceeding their annual carbon ration scheme unless they take drastic action in other areas, such as switching off the central heating or cutting out almost all car journeys.

Those who exceed their carbon ration scheme pay a fine for every kilogram of carbon they emit over the limit. The money is deducted from their pay and the level of the fine is printed on payslips. Those who consume less than their carbon ration scheme are rewarded at the same rate per kilogram. The maximum that an employee can earn or be fined has been capped at £100, but is likely to rise once staff has grown accustomed to the idea.

The idea of personal quotas for carbon emissions through carbon ration schemes is being advocated by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Employees would be given a number of free “carbon credits”, to buy gas and electricity for their homes, fuel for cars and plane tickets for holidays. Those who did not use all their carbon credits could sell the excess to those who exceeded their carbon emission quota.

In UK the carbon ration schemes target of this year is 5.5 tonnes of carbon, which is one tonne above the national average for home energy and personal transport. The US carbon ration schemes target is likely to be double the UK target, to reflect greater carbon emissions per person.

You have got to be kidding me.

Hello again, El:

Of course, someone who thinks that "pollutants", don't "pollute", but instead are "beneficial to life", would believe that eliminating them would be suicide....

Fortunately for the world, only the tin hat crowd is drinkin THAT koolaid. I'm glad you posted too.

excon

Photosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis)

I don't know how CO2, required for photosynthesis, is a "pollutant." Please explain EX.



G&P

I don't know how CO2, required for photosynthesis, is a "pollutant." Please explain EX.Hello in:

CO2 is like water. In small amounts it's good. But, too much of it, we drown.

Too much CO2 will cause the oceans to rise a few feet thereby killing about a jillion people and pissing off a whole lot more. Tropical birds'll like it, though.

excon

How, pray tell, does CO2 cause oceans to rise, oh great font of wisdom that is Excon?

And if this process DOES occur, will it occur so quickly that it will cause a tsunami that will kill "about a jillion people" like in the really bad disaster movies? Or is it more likely to happen slowly over several decades, giving people time to move to other places that are safer, dryer, and generally more comfortable?

"Too much" CO2 causes more plants (mostly sea algae) to grow and photosynthesis to increase, which then converts the CO2 into oxygen, thus maintaining the equilibrium of the planet. There is no such thing as "too much CO2".

Or do you think that there's such a thing as too much O2 and too many plants too?

>snicker<

Elliot

How, pray tell, does CO2 cause oceans to rise, oh great font of wisdom that is Excon?Hello again, El:

It's like this. We liberals have a secret book. It tells us that perfection could not happen all by itself. It says that perfection needs an exconvict to have deigned it to be so... and then it is. Guess what?

excon

PS> I heard you guys got a similar book...

PPS> So, what do you have against NY City? Wouldn't you rather STOP the oceans from rising instead of having to move NY CITY? Dude!

Hello again, El:

It's like this. We liberals have a secret book. It tells us that perfection could not happen all by itself. It says that perfection needs an exconvict to have deigned it to be so... and then it is. Guess what?

excon

PS> I heard you guys got a similar book...

PPS> So, what do you have against NY City? Wouldn't you rather STOP the oceans from rising instead of having to move NY CITY? Dude!!

I'll take my chances with the rising of the seas around NY... I doubt I'm going to be swimming down Broadway any time soon, barring a major water-main break.

As for your book... we Conservatives are already perfect. We don't need no stinkin' book.

Elliot

I wonder if China and India are going to give Obama a "cool" reception over global warming ;)


G&P

China and India have opted for a voluntary scheme where a percentage of energy will come from renewables. That doesn't put the brakes on emissions, it just directs efforts

Even the BBC has gotten skeptical. Is there hope for mankind yet?


What happened to global warming? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm)

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

Got to love that scientific consensus now.

As for your book... we Conservatives are already perfect. We don't need no stinkin' book.

Elliot

You sure do think highly of yourself. Im sure the bible says it's a sin to think your perfect, if not I'll just misinterpret the bible to fit my point. I need some Republican help though. :confused:

Even the BBC has gotten skeptical. Is there hope for mankind yet?

Gotta love that scientific consensus now.

One thing science hates to do is say we are wrong, I don't place my faith in the media to give me hope, if I did I would be in despair.

Only 50 days to save the world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8313672.stm) from global warming according to British PM Gordon Brown:


Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".

He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".

I guess he doesn't watch BBC (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/global-warming-scientists-got-wrong-398824-3.html#post2027278).

This whole global warming from co2 thing has become an article of faith. You have the true believers, the fanatic fundamentalists, the skeptics (agnostics) and the athiests. Brown is among the fundamentalists as was was his predecessor.

Evening all

Firstly PLEASE PLEASE Do not think PM Gordon Brown is British, we have disowned him! He is Scottish and will stay that way

He is about to loose the next General Election and is looking for a Save the World Campaign - he has lost the plot

Talking about Scientists claiming this or the other

In the 80s, PM Margaret Thatcher wanted the science of global warming to proved or disproved

SO the givernment requested a team of people to look at this, and funnily enough they were promised grants if they proved it was an effect

Low and behold, they all came back with an opinon that Global Warming was occurring and it was man made

This was one of the Great Lady's ideas to start a new bsuiness for the country, especially at a time when we losing some of our industries due to foreign markets and needed jobs to be created in new fields

So I am afraid most of us brits do look at the scientific approach with a lot of salt

However, this is in noway supporting elliot idea that we should just forget everything just because the warming and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle

Who here wants to work in a town or city that is full of smog

Who here wants to have their children being brought up with high amounts of pollutants in the air that cause respiratory conditions

If the simple fact remains, that burning and consuming fossil fuels produce smog then why should we continue to do so especially when alternatives on the market exist to provide us with clean affordable and more importantly renewable energy

Elliot
I'll take my chances with the rising of the seas around NY... I doubt I'm going to be swimming down Broadway any time soon, barring a major water-main break

Please mate, yet again we are back to a "Im all right jack" attitude, when will you realise there are 6bn people here, in 2040 this is expected to be 9bn

Fossil fuels have a shelf life

We need to change the way we produce energy for starters, as the world cannot feed itself at the moment let alone adding more to the dinner table

Firstly PLEASE PLEASE Do not think PM Gordon Brown is British, we have disowned him! He is Scottish and will stay that way

Duly noted and understood.


This was one of the Great Lady's ideas to start a new bsuiness for the country, especially at a time when we losing some of our industries due to foreign markets and needed jobs to be created in new fields

I think you'll find quite a few of us were fans of the Great Lady. Oh that we could find a couple more like her and counterpart over here at the time.


Who here wants to work in a town or city that is full of smog

Who here wants to have their children being brought up with high amounts of pollutants in the air that cause respiratory conditions

If the simple fact remains, that burning and consuming fossil fuels produce smog then why should we continue to do so especially when alternatives on the market exist to provide us with clean affordable and more importantly renewable energy

Don't let the things said about us here fool you into believing we're for trashing the planet or against alternative energy sources. I'm just against this sham that is the global warming 'consensus.'

Steve (also)

Eveing Steve

Thank you on the Gordon Brown thing - lost cause I'm afraid :)

Magaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, yes please, she really dug us out of a very large pit, and they way she would just say no to every politician (british or european) and state, "I am going to do it like this, you can follow if you like" was genius

I must say though, what I love about forums like this, is you get to understand what another countries poeples really think without being told via news etc

The news portrays the US as a oil crazed country where the idea of recycling is poo pooed, and yet I have found that it is not like that, purely the effect of previous generations on the next, so I do see your point of view.

Basically if I wanted to be lied to I would speak to my teenage kids, politicians have a resposnibilty to be honest, like that will ever happen

Evening all

Firstly PLEASE PLEASE Do not think PM Gordon Brown is British, we have disowned him! He is Scottish and will stay that way

He is about to loose the next General Election and is looking for a Save the World Campaign - he has lost the plot

Yes you guys have been trying to get rid of those pesky scots for centuries, but you do like Labor politicians, why I can't understand


Talking about Scientists claiming this or the other

In the 80s, PM Margaret Thatcher wanted the science of global warming to proved or disproved

SO the givernment requested a team of people to look at this, and funnily enough they were promised grants if they proved it was an effect

Low and behold, they all came back with an opinon that Global Warming was occurring and it was man made

This was one of the Great Lady's ideas to start a new bsuiness for the country, especially at a time when we losing some of our industries due to foreign markets and needed jobs to be created in new fields

So now global warming is mad Margaret's fault, you do draw a long bow to suggest she could have that much influence on a modern world. Margaret's legacy is to cause a hole in the ozone layer by taking war to the south Atlantic. By the way my suggestion is about as equally plausible as yours.


So I am afraid most of us brits do look at the scientific approach with a lot of salt

However, this is in noway supporting elliot idea that we should just forget everything just because the warming and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle

Who here wants to work in a town or city that is full of smog

Who here wants to have their children being brought up with high amounts of pollutants in the air that cause respiratory conditions

If the simple fact remains, that burning and consuming fossil fuels produce smog then why should we continue to do so especially when alternatives on the market exist to provide us with clean affordable and more importantly renewable energy

I think there is actually more factual support for the idea that warming/cooling is a natural cycle that we have yet to discern. This has nothing to do with the desirability of continuing the use of fossil fuels. Our availability of fossil fuels is finite and unfortunately concentrated in parts of the world where they could become very expensive. Each nation needs to exploit its natural resources without the interference of the international community, so Britian/Europe has an abundance of wind, it makes good sense to use this resource, but without forcing the rest of the world to comply because it makes you uncompetitive. Australia has an abundance of sun/uranium/coal it makes good sense to use this resource even it it gives us competitive advantage, other nations have a different mix, but fixation on co2 is paranoia.


Elliot

Please mate, yet again we are back to a "Im all right jack" attitude, when will you realise there are 6bn people here, in 2040 this is expected to be 9bn

Fossil fuels have a shelf life

We need to change the way we produce energy for starters, as the world cannot feed itself at the moment let alone adding more to the dinner table

I agree that fossil fuels have a shelf life, but you won't change the attitude of people like Elliot who have failed to realise the US has entered the decline phase of their particular empire. The world can feed itsself and even for 9 Billion but we have to get the distribution right. This is the problem, we can produce food but to distribute it properly we have to get a lot smarter, like stop subsidising surpluses in Europe and the US. We need to teach Africa to feed itself and stem the migration of people who need economic development.

Right now the jury is still out on the greenhouse gas debate, but it isn't out on the fact that serious climatic changes are taking place, particularly at the poles. I think there is an arrogance that says we can influence that either way and the exploiters have found anew way to control and exploit us.

Phlanx,

I want to make my position clear.

I'm not in favor of polluting. I just don't think that it is causing global warming. There are very good reasons not to pollute the planet without having to resort to mythology and junk science.

I'm in favor of finding alternative fuels... if for no other reason than energy independence from foreign bodies that do not have our best interests at heart.

I'm in favor of ecological protection, if only so that the next generation can hunt, fish, and log as much as we can today.

I'm in favor of lowering emmissions where feasible and financially sound to do so, if only because of the health concerns from people who suffer from asthma and similar disorders.

But please don't tell me that the reason that I need to do this stuff is because of global warming when all the evidence points to a cooling trend and not a warming one. Please don't tell me that man-made pollution is changing the weather globally when all evidence points to the fact that the weather trends we are seeing are cyclical and have been going on for THOUSANDS of years... long before mankind was in the picture.

There are some very good reasons to be environmentally conscious... but global warming ISN'T one of them. And I resent those (like AlGore) who try to insult my intelligence on this issue with "Chicken Little" cries of "The sky is falling" when the sky is doing just fine, thanks.

Elliot

Hi Elliot

Well well, again we agree on a point :)

However, we are back with politicians again aren't we :)

Do you think, that it is a case of hope and fear

They breathe fear by stating the sky is falling, and spread hope through intervention

So their argument is based on the game they play of wanting to be re-elected?

Hi Elliot

Well well, again we agree on a point :)

However, we are back with politicans again arent we :)

Do you think, that it is a case of hope and fear

They breathe fear by stating the sky is falling, and spread hope through intervention

So their argument is based on the game they play of wanting to be re-elected?

Steve you know that it is all a game, a game of my statistics are better than your statistics. Do the planet warming statistics of recent years suggest it might be? What statistics? Well the area of sea ice in the arctic, the retreat of glaciers. Some statistics suggest it is cooling, what statistics? Try the level of snow fall in Eastern Antarctica, mean average temperatures over the last thousand years. Is CO2 the problem? According to Al Gore's short term measurement there is a correlation, according to others CO2 keeps rising but temperature isn't in step and thousands of years ago CO2 was much higher but we still have polar bears. This is a political game being played on a world stage. For Europe if everyone falls in line they win and everyone buys their technology. For the US, no warming means business as usual. What I say is Bah, Humbug, In fifty years we are going to laugh at how gullible people were.
But the sad truth is the west will be reduced to third world standards because the third world will have all the economic power

I only have one thing to say.

I was looking forward to the planet warming up. I live in Canada, the winters are cold. :(

Now they're saying it's cooling down.

That does it, I'm moving to Hawaii. :(

I only have one thing to say.

I was looking forward to the planet warming up. I live in Canada, the winters are cold. :(

Now they're saying it's cooling down.

That does it, I'm moving to Hawaii. :(

I'd go now, don't wait, even if some parts are warming, the long term projections are it won't stay that way, it seems we can have an ice age even if CO2 levels are more than twice what they are now, something that these fanatics just haven't explained yet. I think I'll move North too, the winters are just too cold and with it becoming more humid it's becoming too hard to take

Clete,

An ice age can be triggered by the mass of fresh water expanding with the melting of the ice caps pucshing the bodies of sea water further south

It is within the sea water that we have the warm currents that protect us from expanding poles, so when these are pushed south, the fresh water cools quicker and an Ice Age occurs and if it is anything like the animated film, bring it on :)

That does it, I'm moving to Hawaii. :(

Hawaii will surely be disappearing under water in a few years so buy something inland so you'll be right there for the new beach front property.

I want to make my position clear.

I'm not in favor of poluting. I just don't think that it is causing global warming. Hello Elliot:

See, there the thing you right wingers don't get... If you're not in favor of polluting, why not just stop polluting even if it doesn't cause global warming?? If you're right, whatever pollution is causing will stop, even if it's not global warming... Pollution IS doing something bad, no??

excon

Hello Elliot:

See, there the thing you right wingers don't get.... If you're not in favor of poluting, why not just stop poluting even if it doesn't cause global warming??? If you're right, whatever polution is causing will stop, even it it's not global warming... Polution IS doing something bad, no???

excon

I have no problem with just stopping pollution.

What I have a problem with is government legislating an end to emissions that AREN'T pollution for the express purpose of regulating and controlling industry. What I have a problem with is government using non-existant "global warming" as an excuse to control the economy.

When the government can create a fiction that says that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and then make laws that limit the production of carbon dioxide, there is a problem. Because carbon dioxide is DEMONSTRABLY not a pollutant, and the sole purpose of limiting its production is to control industry, not control of pollution.

So if we want to make sensible laws about controlling pollution, I can get behind that. But I'm against laws that limit the production of stuff that isn't pollution just for the sake of government power.

Elliot

See, there the thing you right wingers don't get.... If you're not in favor of poluting, why not just stop poluting even if it doesn't cause global warming???

Still assuming we shouldn't stop polluting? How about we do it right though, instead of rushing headlong into disastrous regulations, this con game called "cap and trade" and ending all the unnecessary fear mongering and blatant dishonesty?

Because carbon dioxide is DEMONSTRABLY not a pollutant, and the sole purpose of limiting its production is to control industry, not control of pollution.Hello again, Elliot:

Here we were having a nice discussion and then you go all bonkers on me...

You say the garbage above with a straight face too, as though you really think you're pulling one off on us, huh?? Using your logic, one could say that WATER is not poison... But, if you drink too much of it, you'll DIE.

It's TRUE, is your warped way, CO2 isn't a polutant, in the truest sense of the word.. But too much of it the air WILL cause things to heat up, and WILL cause the ice caps to melt and WILL cause your home in Jersey to become waterlogged...

So, if people want to listen to you, I'm sure you'll give 'em what they want... But, be prepared for the TRUTH from me.

excon

Salvo Elliot and Excon

Just to add Co2 emissions normally come as a byproduct of burning another product, which also emitts other gasses

Tell me, if you could have a car that has water coming out of the exhaust (tailpipe) or Co2 - which one would everyone prefer?

IS the rest of the argument really necessary? we all know the politicians lie to us regardless of nation, we all know the global science is not proven or disproven, and yet the answer is simple

Clean energy regardless of any other reason is the best way forward, it will devolop jobs, a whole industry, and provide clean breathable air, with an economy not dependent on foreign resource

Is it just me and excon that can see that point of view?

Still assuming we shouldn't stop polluting? How about we do it right though, instead of rushing headlong into disastrous regulations, this con game called "cap and trade" and ending all the unnecessary fear mongering and blatant dishonesty?Hello again, Steve:

YES, I think you believe that, not only you shouldn't STOP polluting, you believe the stuff you produce DOESN'T pollute... If you doubt me, please re-read the Wolvernine's post.

So, the FIRST step in reeling pollution back in, is RECOGNIZING what pollution is... Once we do that, we can all go to second grade... But, SOME of us are stuck in first..

The above, however, is not an endorsement for cap and trade. These, are TWO different issues. But, lets discuss fixing it, after you get that there is something to fix.

excon

A good friend of mine, builds biomass power stations

They are designed to produce electricity for the grid by burning elephant grass

The elephant grass is grown local to the power station

This grass also supports wildlife and is helping to re-populate large areas of agricultural fallow land

So it is producing jobs, good wildlife, green electricity, and serving the local community

There are zero emmissions being produced by the station through filtration

All this is made possible by the government intervening and providing tax credits for green energy, and will do so until the technology and buildings can be profitable

So why should we build coal stations or other fossil fuel stations when we can produce power cleanly?

YES, I think you believe that, not only you shouldn't STOP polluting, you believe the stuff you produce DOESN'T pollute... If you doubt me, please re-read the Wolvernine's post.

I'm not the Wolverine.


So, the FIRST step in reeling pollution back in, is RECOGNIZING what pollution is... Once we do that, we can all go to second grade... But, SOME of us are stuck in first..

It's certainly not me, it seems the "consensus" scientific community is stuck in first grade, they violate the very fundamentals of science in ignoring, downplaying and refusing to discuss conflicting research and observed phenomenon that contradicts their consensus.


The above, however, is not an endorsement for cap and trade. These, are TWO different issues. But, lets discuss fixing it, after you get that there is something to fix.

Still misrepresenting us but no surprise since you admit you don't actually read what we post. Since cap and trade is purported to be a solution to the problem you can't separate the two, and that's the same problem as with health care reform (http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=319145&start=1). You guys keep telling everyone we don't think there's a problem when we've acknowledged a problem many times. We just disagree on the extent of the problem and the proposed solutions.

Hello again, Elliot:

Here we were having a nice discussion and then you go all bonkers on me....

You say the garbage above with a straight face too, as though you really think you're pulling one off on us, huh??? Using your logic, one could say that WATER is not poison.... But, if you drink too much of it, you'll DIE.

It's TRUE, is your warped way, CO2 isn't a polutant, in the truest sense of the word.. But too much of it the air WILL cause things to heat up, and WILL cause the ice caps to melt and WILL cause your home in Jersey to become waterlogged...

So, if people want to listen to you, I'm sure you'll give 'em what they want... But, be prepared for the TRUTH from me.

excon

As you say, water isn't a pollutant, but too much of it will kill us. Nevertheless, I don't see Congress trying to legislate water out of existence to protect us and save the planet.

By your logic, we need to prevent rain from falling and get rid of all the oceans because too much water will kill us. That would be the equivalent of what Congress is trying to legislate. The legislation being put forth by Congress calls for the eventual ELIMINATION of CO2 production.

Fact is that we NEED CO2. We need it so that plants can convert it to O2. We need it to regulate the chemistry of our bodies so that our heart rates and resperaatory rates don't go through the roof and kill us. It is a natural byproduct of LIFE, and it is a necessary component for life.

Anything that is both a byproduct of life and a necessary component to life CANNOT be a pollutant.

Elliot

Clean energy regardless of any other reason is the best way forward, it will devolop jobs, a whole industry, and provide clean breathable air, with an economy not dependent on foreign resource

Is it just me and excon that can see that point of view?

When the technology is available and a rational transition can take place then sign me up. Creating draconian legislation to force the issue will not work. The infrastructure to illuminate the home with the incandecent bulb did not become part of the infrastructure until there was a clear rational market reason for the switch from whale oil lanterns. But you could not have made regulations forcing the switch until the lightbulb was ready to assume it's place. If you had done so ,all you would've had was a whole bunch of darkened homes.

None of us oppose the future technology. What we don't want is economy killing regulations .

Salvo Elliot and Excon

Just to add Co2 emissions normally come as a byproduct of burning another product, which also emitts other gasses

Tell me, if you could have a car that has water coming out of the exhaust (tailpipe) or Co2 - which one would everyone prefer?

From the point of view of POLLUTION, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a car that emits CO2 and one that emits H2O. Neither one is a pollutant, and neither one is dangerous to the environment.


IS the rest of the argument really necessary? we all know the politicians lie to us regardless of nation, we all know the global science is not proven or disproven, and yet the answer is simple

Clean energy regardless of any other reason is the best way forward, it will devolop jobs, a whole industry, and provide clean breathable air, with an economy not dependent on foreign resource

Is it just me and excon that can see that point of view?

The rest of the argument IS necessary. You see, government is trying to use "global warming" as an excuse to grab more power, and has therefore named CO2 as a pollutant, when it clearly is not. By being able to regulate CO2 emmissions, they can control the energy industry, the auto industry, and any manufacturing industries that produce CO2 as a byproduct of their operations. It is about economic control by the government, not cleaning up the planet. Because CO2 isn't a polutant, there really isn't anything to clean up... it's just an excuse.

And THAT is the point we are trying to make.

You want to have sensible rules to keep the planet clean? Go for it. I'm right there with you.

But when you go way past "sensible" and start using "global warming" as an excuse to increase government control over the economy, then you are going to have a fight on your hands.

A good friend of mine, builds biomass power stations

They are designed to produce electricity for the grid by burning elephant grass

The elephant grass is grown local to the power station

This grass also supports wildlife and is helping to re-populate large areas of agricultural fallow land

So it is producing jobs, good wildlife, green electricity, and serving the local community

There are zero emmissions being produced by the station through filtration

All this is made possible by the government intervening and providing tax credits for green energy, and will do so until the technology and buildings can be profitable

So why should we build coal stations or other fossil fuel stations when we can produce power cleanly?


As I have said before, I'm cool with alternative fuels... if only to gain energy independence. If burning elephant grass can produce enough electricity on an ongoing basis to supply our current and future needs and is economical, then go for it. (Though most of the feasability studies I have seen have shown that the cost of biomass production is too high for it to replace fossil fuels. If this is an exception to that rule, then go for it.)

But don't tell me that the reason that I need to switch, regardless of the economic costs and whether I will lose money from switching, is because of global warming or because CO2 is a pollutant. That boat don't float.

Elliot

Though most of the feasability studies I have seen have shown that the cost of biomass production is too high for it to replace fossil fuels. If this is an exception to that rule, then go for it.)

President Bush would mention switch grass occasionally . You make a good point ;a similar point we have made about ethanol . In this case I don't think it is the efficiency as much as other factors like irrigation ;fertilizers... and what happpens in droughts . I do not believe that we are even remotely close to make a complete transition.

Note however that we do have a logical clean burning alternative that the greenies never want to discuss. Breeder reactors .

President Bush would mention switch grass occasionally . You make a good point ;a simular point we have made about ethanol . In this case I don't think it is the efficiency as much as other factors like irrigation ;fertilizers ...and what happpens in droughts . I do not believe that we are even remotely close to make a complete transition.

Note however that we do have a logical clean burning alternative that the greenies never want to discuss. Breeder reactors .


I have heard that animal dung can be used as a fuel.

So why not just burn the bullsh!t that the Dems and Libs are shoveling? We could power the whole world...

Elliot

Biomass is only working at the moment with tax credits, without them proppping up the industry then it wouldn't be economical at the moment

However, as a company with a biomass station you receive green tax credits and these can be traded to large companies with high c02 levels to help them reduce their overall figure

Don't forget, that the gas in your vehicle has processed oil, which produces emissions, the transportation of the oil and gas has produced emissions and finally you car produces more than just co2 emissions

I can appreciate the argument is not scientifically proven for global warming, but who cares! An argument has to be made, and intervention to occur to force industries and businesses to move twowards a cleaner system

So people who think they should concentrate on the argument of whether global warming is being caused or is natural if at all, what would your argument be to get people to leave their V8s behind and go for the hydrocell?

President Bush would mention switch grass occasionally . You make a good point ;a simular point we have made about ethanol Hello again, tom:

Of course, the ANSWER lies in hemp... It's production would allow corn to go back to being food. Hemp produces the highest biomass by far, of any other crop. That's why we used it for rope and made our sails out of it...

But, ain't nobody going to talk about that. See?? The drug war is costing us lots of energy dollars too... Silly drug war.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Of course, the ANSWER lies in hemp... It's production would allow corn to go back to being food. Hemp produces the highest biomass by far, of any other crop. That's why we used it for rope and made our sails out of it...

But, ain't nobody gonna talk about that. See??? The drug war is costing us lots of energy dollars too... Silly drug war.

excon

The funniest part is, hemp is a lousy intoxicant. It's close cousin marijuana is what they were trying to prohibit in the 30's and they just about eradicated hemp instead. Government efficiency at it's best.

Hahha, excon, NICE, not to be putting your argument donw mate, but hemp does come in second place to elephant grass sorry :)

The only reason we know that is that hemp supplier in the UK has a biomass station and my friends company has tested it and seen the results

HOWEVER! Hemp is still an amazing product, you can power cars with it, hell, you can even build cars out of it, not too mention the other trillon products :)

And wildlife loves it!!

What would your argument be to get people to leave their V8s behind and go for the hydrocell


Well for one thing hydrocells Brown's gas is largely a hoax . Maybe you think it takes no energy to separate H from O?
Maybe we should subsidize all those cold fusion plants and flux capacitors too .

Biomass is only working at the moment with tax credits, without them proppping up the industry then it wouldn't be economical at the moment

Then that pretty much answers the question, doesn't it?


However, as a company with a biomass station you receive green tax credits and these can be traded to large companies with high c02 levels to help them reduce their overall figure

"Green Tax Credits". Al Gore's latest ponzi scheme.

You realize, don't you, that when you receive a "green tax credit", or what are being referred to in the USA as "Carbon Credits", you are essentially receiving government permission to pollute x amount.

Does that sound as counterproductive to you as it does to me, if your goal is to clean up the environment?


Don't forget, that the gas in your vehicle has processed oil, which produces emissions, the transportation of the oil and gas has produced emissions and finally you car produces more than just co2 emissions

I agree. And I agree that the more we can limit REAL pollution, the better.

But please don't tell me that something is a polutant when it isn't just to create regulation.


I can appreciate the argument is not scientifically proven for global warming, but who cares! An argument has to be made, and intervention to occur to force industries and businesses to move twowards a cleaner system

Sure... but not through regulation of something that isn't a pollutant. And the fact is that the vast majority of industries already have VERY LOW EMMISSIONS due to really good scrubber technology.


So people who think they should concentrate on the argument of whether global warming is being caused or is natural if at all, what would your argument be to get people to leave their V8s behind and go for the hydrocell?

My argument would be very simple... if hydrocell technology is cost effective, efficient and safe, people will buy it on their own. It won't need to be forced onto us through regulation. If you build the better moustrap, people will come knocking on your door. But if you build a crappy moustrap, nobody will want it until you perfect it.

That's true of ALL types of alternative fuel technology and green tech.

But if it hasn't been perfected, people won't want it, and the ONLY way to get people to use it will be via regulation.

Do you want to be forced by your government to use a product or service that hasn't been perfected, is less efficient and less effective than what you currently have, and may not be as safe?

So in short my argument is, stop trying to regulate green technology. Stop trying to regulate emissions out of existence. Instead, concentrate on perfecting the alternatives, and in doing so, you will create a market for those alternatives. The FREE MARKET will provide the change we want and need. We don't need to regulate it.

Elliot

You know elliot, Some companies are the worst polluters in the world, these are gas and oil companies, but hey we can't make them green, but we can push the business as a whole towards minimizing carbon output, or is that just to a simple idea?

In addition, it creates a whole new industry for a service economy

I really think you have a bone for the word regulation, intervention is required to push companies to change

Human Beings at times need to be pushed in the direction that a democratic society wants to go in

You know elliot, Some companies are the worst polluters in the world, these are gas and oil companies, but hey we can't make them green, but we can push the business as a whole towards minimizing carbon output, or is that just to a simple idea?

In addition, it creates a whole new industry for a service economy

I really think you have a bone for the word regulation, intervention is required to push companies to change

Human Beings at times need to be pushed in the direction that a democratic society wants to go in

I don't think that is true. People neither need nor like to be pushed in ANY direction.

The key is, instead, to give them a viable option that they would WANT to embrace rather than forcing something onto them that they don't want.

People don't have to be FORCED to buy fire extinguishers for their homes. They buy them because the fire extinguishers are a desirable safety product that is cheap and that works.

The switch from VHS to DVD didn't have to be legislated into existence. The DVD manufacturers built a better product, and people bought it.

There was no reason to force people to switch away from the horse an buggy to the automobile. The auto companies built a good product and people bought it.

Companies didn't have to be FORCED to automate their assembly lines as much as possible. They did it on their own because the technology had been perfected, was cheaper than the manpower costs, and did the job effectively. (In fact, government worked very hard to SLOW DOWN automation in industry in order to help the unions keep workers on the payroll.)

Build a better alternative fuel that sereves our needs and is affordable and safe. People will buy it. There will be no need to legislate it. There will be no need for government to intervene. Companies and individuals will buy the product if it is a good product.

Create the proper economic incentives... a good product at an appropriate price... and people will switch of their own accord.

Free market solutions to real problems.

And yes, I do have a bone to pick with "regulation"... as I have stated in prior posts. It is neither effective nor good for the economy. And I contend that many times it is a usurpation of power by the government.

Elliot

It bears repeating
Note however that we do have a logical clean burning alternative that the greenies never want to discuss... Breeder reactors .

It meets all the requirements safe non-polluting clean reliable energy .It can easily bridge the gap between the industrial age and utopia.

Evening Tom

I agree that nuclear energy is the key at the moment to the worlds energy, but isn't it better to explore all avenues first before we go nuclear?

After all, if a wind turbine explodes, maybe a sheep is going to get it, but a nuclear disaster is a little less forgiving

And who wants to live next to a nuclear plant?

isn't it better to explore all avenues first before we go nuclear?

Nope .it's available ,it's proven . The French supply most of their energy with efficient Breeder Reactors and I don't see the plume over Paris.
Wind turbines are over rated . Just ask T Boone Pickens .He was gung ho wind turbines last year . This year he says we should tap Iraqi oil.
Someone better do a good job convincing me that alternatives besides nukes will ever be more than a fringe 10&#37; solution.

I agree with your statements accept, the french have convienently placed most of their reactors near the English Channel and any fall out will come our way :(

Nuclear is proven, probably the future, but surely an oppurtunity to make the case for green energy is justified?

And who wants to live next to a nuclear plant?

So that the power doesn't go out in bad weather

So the electric bill is less than the mortgage payment

So the high school dropouts have a job mowing grass on the safety berms

So the high school graduates have apprenticeship jobs available

I can't imagine. Of course I am excluding the plants using the French design responsible for Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

but surely an oppurtunity to make the case for green energy is justified?

Sure, for automotive and maybe even aviation use. But not for powering large regional electric grids.

Elliot

Again I do not oppose it .
Do the R&D and when it is viable in the market you'll see us all rush to sign on.

Those vaunted gvt subsidies you talk about however are nothing more than a form of protectionism . Our gvt has subsidized corn ethanol for a long time now and it is an unmitigated disaster;causing disrupting of all types in food and fuel markets both here and abroad(including the Mexicans who should be spitting blood at us over the practice ).

Fine then, so if plans were brought up to build a nuclear station near you, would you object to it?

Of course I am excluding the plants using the French design responsible for Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

I don't think that Chernobly was a French design. Three Mile Island wasn't even close to a disaster . It was an easily contained event. But besides that ,it was not a breeder reactor.

Breeders reuse the waste to a point that waste is almost nonexistant.. without the long half life that reactors in the US generate.

Fine then, so if plans were brought up to build a nuclear station near you, would you object to it?

Already live within the evacuation range of one. They were building one on Long Island when I was younger . That project was funding the whole school district . It was great for the community . But neighboring communities made an issue about evacuation so the project was scrubbed . Now LI has terrible generation issues. Projects like windmills in the ocean have gone nowhere. No one wants their site lines disturbed.

I appreciate the point that nobidy wants to live anywhere other than natural beauty, but it's a simple choice, andif you are happy to live near one, then it means I don't have to

NIMBY is a plague . People think that electricity comes from wires to their house and are not even remotely aware of what it takes to get there .

We need more energy to fuel existing economies and emerging ones ,not less .The way I see it ;all hands on deck . Exploit all of them and let the market decide.

Fine then, so if plans were brought up to build a nuclear station near you, would you object to it?

Nope.

We New Yorkers already have Indian Point (Westchester County), FitzPatrick (Oswego County, upstate), Ginna (Wayne County, 20 miles north of Rochester), 9 Mile Point (also in Oswego County), and we used to have Shoreham (Suffolk County), till it was shut down. (Tom and I are just a stone's throw away from Indian Point and Shoreham.)

Right next door in New Jersey, we've got Hope Creek (Salem County, southern part of NJ), Oyster Creek (Ocean County, central NJ), and Salem (Salem County). (I vacation in Ocean County.)

Problem is, they are all running at less than 20% of capacity and barely producing any electricity. If we simply took the 65 or so currently operating reactors and let them operate at 80% of capacity, we could just about solve our national need for electrical energy. They are already built and mostly just standing idle, or close to it. The capital costs would be just about ZERO, because they are already just standing there.

Elliot

Hey phlanx, have you seen this ad on TV?

w62gsctP2gc

The UK government is telling creepy climate change bedtime stories to children complete with a drowning dog. Apparently people aren't too happy about that (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100014424/government-tv-climate-ad-is-propaganda/). That's what I was talking about earlier, we need to end this fearmongering about climate change and scaring and using children for such propaganda is just pathetic.

Clete,

An ice age can be triggered by the mass of fresh water expanding with the melting of the ice caps pucshing the bodies of sea water further south

It is within the sea water that we have the warm currents that protect us from expanding poles, so when these are pushed south, the fresh water cools quicker and an Ice Age occurs and if it is anything like the animated film, bring it on :)

I think it is undesirable to wish for an ice age, after all the place where you live would be frozen solid. I understand the possibilities of shutting down the "Great conveyor" in the North Atlantic, but I doubt man has the ability to do this, something else is involved.

Nope, never saw that advert before speech, but doesn't surprise me

The government here has had a policy for three years on Co2

What it really comes down to is

1. They want more fuel efficient cleaner cars on the road and the big guzzlers to go, for the reasons of increased space in city centres and more car sales

They even stated that winding your window up saves on petrol and therefore less co2 - all good until you feel warm and stick on the aircon!

2. We have not invested in nuclear power or any other source correctly and with a growing population the shortage problem is getting bigger and so to combat that we are being told to reduce or electricity intake

I understand completely the crap that politicians spread, unfortunately it takes a rare breed of a politician who can stand up and say and do the right thing and still win the popularity contest that most politicians get elected on these days

We all know we are being told crap, but that is the way the game is played - the same in France, Germany and especially in the US

You cannot tell someone to change for the better because it is right to do, you have to tell them if they don't change it will be worst for them

As I have said before, accept the fact that all politicians lie, find out for yourself the reason and go with that

Sometimes doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing

I think it is undesirable to wish for an ice age, afterall the place where you live would be frozen solid. I understand the possibilities of shutting down the "Great conveyor" in the North Atlantic, but I doubt man has the ability to do this, something else is involved.

The point is it is all hypothetical, the only way to truly know if anybody is right about the whole global warming structure is for a global disaster to occur

Who wants that!

We all know we are being told crap, but that is the way the game is played - the same in France, Germany and especially in the US

I knew that when everyone was so hot on Obama and his promises on transparency, ethics, civility and on and on. That lasted until the first full week of his presidency.


You cannot tell someone to change for the better because it is right to do, you have to tell them if they don't change it will be worst for them

Sorry Steve, I'm just not that cynical.


Sometimes doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing

Maybe, but I take offense at using children as pawns in this game and I still believe in honesty as the best policy. I'm not a child and it's past time for politicians to both stop treating me like one and acting like one.

I don't know what the stats are for election polls over in the US, but here, local and state elections run at around 30&#37; to 40% turnout of the voting population

This I put down to the fact that most people are sick and tired of the way they are spoken to by politicians and as such don't really care who gets into power as the lie is the same for all

I am stating how politicians play the game, I never said I liked it

I have always wanted to see a politician on a Performace Related Pay, when they state they will get waiting lists down or more people employed, then fine - give a target, and if you achieve it you get 100% pay, if you get 50% of the target then you get your BFH (Bus Fare Home)

I always thought having legislators pay come out of profit was the way to go. Simplistic, but wouldn't it change politics?

Now they've gone to far...

Save Earth – Eat Your Pet (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/10/save-the-planet-eat-your-pet/)


The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.

“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact … is comparable.”

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle’s eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog’s.

They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.

I told my dogs they were ruining the planet this morning and they just looked back at me and said "feed me." So what do I give up, my truck, my car, my dogs or my wife?

But think of the organic fertilizer they produce

Think of the reaction to this study by our large Southeast Asian community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat#Vietnam) :eek:

I think there's a better way to handle this.

Save the planet, eat a liberal.

Elliot