Global Warming Is Officially Over, Suck It Greenies!

Like I've been saying for years now (along with several others), mankind did not cause global warming, and mankind has not curbed global warming either. If you listen to Al Gore and his ilk you know that, according to them, man has not done anything to improve the environment ... so don't let them try to take credit here.

No doubt there will be wide spread panic tomorrow in the greenie community to counter this evidence. Their tactic will likely include widespread suppression of the issue by ignoring it. One might think they would try to discredit this info, but they simply can't. The satellite data is nothing new at all, but the greenies ignored it several other times it was published. The greenies have also never responded to NASA's repeated attempts to explain that the sun is the cause of global warming not only here, but on virtually every other planet ... not humans. Why? The answer is simple ... they can't counter the argument, and if they ignore it the idiots out there will never know it even happened. They've also paid no attention to scientists telling everyone that the planet's temperature has fluctuated for the past 10,000 years naturally, and without our help. Hell, even the dinosaurs were the victims of global warming.

I've been celebrating all day now that I know that global warming is officially over.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

I guess the founder of the Weather Channel was right about global warming being a crock eh? This does explain why scientist have been so baffled, and humbled, by the current weather patterns being so cold.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

As it turns out, NASA was right after all. Gee, who'd have thunk it.

Rest assured my little greenie friends ... the article still spells out doom for our planet because apparently cold is worse than heat. Which means you still have a cause to fight for by simply reverting back to the 1970's mantra that the planet was headed for a deep freeze, and then when it begins to warm again you can restart the cause of global warming. So you see, there is plenty to keep you occupied with. Problem is if global warming is less of an issue than global cooling ... maybe global warming was never a really big deal to begin with.

The way I see it, we need to make some changes, and start recognizing some basic truths.

Even though the US is performing better than the Kyoto countries in reducing carbon emissions we have a golden opportunity to squash the competition by removing all of our climate change restrictions on private business. Furthermore, since we know that carbon credits are a huge scam, that is stealing millions of dollars from the world's populations, we should put an end to these illegal businesses. We should also make sure that Kyoto is properly investigated for causing economic hardships, and needlessly destroying the world's forests.

It is also time that we launch massive investigation into the scientific community to find out which scientist continued to lie and manipulate data about global warming in order to get funding. You should already know the huge amounts of money involved with supporting global warming arguments through funding (over $80 billion). While we are punishing those scientist who have lied about global warming in order to get money ... we should reward the majority of published scientist that were honest by saying man is not responsible, or that there was not enough evidence to say either way. Less than half of published scientist support man-made global warming, so the investigation should go fairly quick.

It's also time that we accept polar bears are not in danger, and in fact are increasing their populations. However, we must be concerned with sea otters. It's time to save the poor little sea otters!

We should also consider not blaming our innocent children for destroying the planet. They have enough on their plate, and they deserve to get a good night's sleep without having nightmares about dieing in the middle of the night because of global warming. At least 6th graders are smart enough to know that man isn't causing global warming. Can you say the same?

We can also buy ourselves some nice SUVs without feeling guilty, and we no longer have to worry about sports cars being outlawed. Why not start eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream again while driving your new SUV. Since we don't have to worry about global warming anymore ... ice cream is safe. Well, not entirely safe ... they still have hidden soy products to slowly kill children and men.

It's a good thing global warming ended when it did so we don't have to worry about mercury poisoning with the CFL bulbs that congress keeps trying to shove down our throat. Whew, that was a close call. Now we can hold off until the even more energy efficient, and perfectly safe, LED bulbs hit the market in mass.

There have been some serious budget issue with regards to global warming that we don't need to worry about anymore either. Those new emissions standards that may ruin America's auto industry won't be necessary any longer. The military and intelligence community can also continue to focus on defending the country and fighting the war on terror without worrying about conducting war games to test how global warming will affect national security.

John Travolta can also stick around on Earth to entertain us with his acting,which is quite good, rather than going to another planet.

One of the best parts of global warming ending is that the UN will finally address the real issues that are causing the genocide in Darfur. Rather than wasting their time trying to tie Darfur to nonsensical theories. The conflict in Darfur predates the United States, it was not caused by global warming.

So you see, there is some work to be done now that global warming is no more. The predators who have preyed upon gullible people need to be punished, and those who stuck up for us rewarded. Even if it's only a thank you, but some funding for their research would be nice. The American people stand to get a windfall in money that the government no longer needs for climate change programs. We can only wait to see how our government will spend that money, but rest assured we won't get it back. My only hope is that it goes for truly necessary programs like veterans assistance, or a super dooper death ray mounted in space to evaporate our enemies. At a bare minimum I hope the money we save, from these now unnecessary programs, will be enough to cover the massive costs of the social programs Hillary and Obama have proposed, because I fear one of them will be president and we don't have the money to cover those programs.

Scientists Baffled, Just Baffled That The Snow Keeps Falling ... Buuurrr

To quote Al 'Goracle' Gore:

Scientists “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence” ... scientists “don’t know. … They just don’t know.”

I know Al ... I know.

Denver Post:

Dry-winter forecasts were flat wrong this year for much of Colorado and the Southwest, and weather experts say they're struggling to understand why the snow just keeps falling.

Some forecasters blame climate change, and others point to the simple vicissitudes of weather. Regardless, almost everyone called for a dry-to-normal winter in Colorado and the Southwest — but today, the state's mountains are piled so thick with snow that state reservoirs could fill and floods could be widespread this spring.

"The polar jet stream has been on steroids. We don't understand this. It's pushing our limits, and it's humbling," said Klaus Wolter, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Baffling ... just baffling.

Yep, The US Is Still Doing Better Than Kyoto Countries On Emissions

It's been a year since you were last told that the US is doing better at reducing emissions than the Kyoto nations. Now it seems that some nations to have signed Kyoto are increasing their emissions by 80%.

Aftenposten:

Just as Norwegian delegates to the UN's conference on climate change started heading home from Bali, came news that Norway's own carbon emissions rose 80 percent from 1990 to 2004. Statoil's refinery at Mongstad is the biggest contributor.

So how exactly do they plan to fix this problem? Well, they don't. Instead they are invoking the Ultimate Scam, and using carbon credits.

Erik Solheim, the government minister in charge of environmental issues who was in Bali last week, admits that Norway's own high level of emissions is "embarrassing." That's why the government plans to donate NOK 15 billion (nearly USD 3 billion) over the next five years to help preserve the world's rain forests. That's viewed as an efficient way of offsetting carbon emissions.

I hate to be a scrooge so close to the holidays, but only the worst of dimwits view carbon credits as an efficient way of offsetting emissions. Let's not forget that Guyana slammed Kyoto's carbon credit scheme, and Kyoto's carbon credit program has also been causing deforestation.

Basically, Kyoto along with all of the signatory nations are FUBAR. Meanwhile, the US continues to grow its economy, reduce its emissions, and all without sacrificing any freedoms to a foreign body while throwing away billions of dollars. God bless capitalism!

Jews Are Responsible For Global Warming

Happy Hanukkah Jews! Bye the way, you are destroying the planet.

At least that is the latest global warming insanity being spewed by those who ignore the "inconvenient truth" that the sun is warming up all the planets in our solar system.

JPost:

In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.

The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

"The campaign calls for Jews around the world to save the last candle and save the planet, so we won't need another miracle," said Liad Ortar.

Uh, yeah. So now fire is destroying the planet? Let's recap the things that are destroying the planet ... well a couple of them anyway ... the biggest producer of carbon is the ocean, the biggest producer of methane is termites, now there's fire, and let's not forget the sun. All perfectly natural entities crucial to Earth's survival. Interesting how these things that are so vital to Earth's survival happen to be more responsible for global warming than anything else.

Today, Jews are not allowed to light the last candle. Tomorrow, no more birthdays.

Brazil Finds HUGE Oil Reserve. What's This Mean For Ethanol?

As you know, Brazil has one of the largest bio-fuels programs in the world. About 18% of their country's fuel is ethanol from sugar cane. While Brazil did this to ensure that it was fuel self-sufficient, and didn't have to import fuel, greenies have been touting Brazil as a model for environmentalism. With the new oil find, it looks like Brazil is less interested in making the planet more green, and more interested in making some more green themselves.

BBC:

The Brazilian government says huge new oil reserves discovered off its coast could turn the country into one of the biggest oil producers in the world.

Petrobras, Brazil's national oil company, says it believes the offshore Tupi field has between 5bn and 8bn barrels of recoverable light oil.

A senior minister said Brazilian oil production had the potential to match that of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Petrobras delivered its estimate after analysing test results.

Making Brazil one of the largest oil producers clearly removes them from any environmental model put forth by the greenies.

Naturally, the government is thrilled.

The news, which led to a sharp rise in company shares, was also given an enthusiastic welcome by the government.

The senior minister in charge of the cabinet, Dilma Rousseff, said if the deposits turned out to be as significant as first thought, it would place Brazil in the same league as Venezuela and countries in the Arab world.

With a reserve like this, the country could be transformed into an exporter of petroleum, she said.

"This has changed our reality," she said.

Yep, you poor greenies have just lost the "moral high ground" argument as it applies to Brazil. They don't give a damn about the environment ... they want to make money.

Let's not forget that this UN expert says it is immoral to use food crops for fuel.

The Founder Of The Weather Channel Says Global Warming Is The "Greatest Scam In History"

Do you all remember when the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen said the American Meteorological Society should revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe? Then those who don't believe man is behind global warming were compared to holocaust deniers?

Well, now the person who founded the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is speaking out against those like Heidi Cullen. He says global warming is a huge scam.

Icecap:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.

PWNED!

The guy has been a meteorologist since 1953. You can read more about him here.

I wonder if he'll get as much attention as Heidi did from the MSM when she made her opinions clear ... I doubt it.

Oh, and to make this story even more fun ... he does the weather in San Diego now. That's the same San Diego that just had those major fires that Harry Reid attributed to global warming (at least partly). That was just a few days before Reid started talking about how very cold it was.

Harry Reid Says Mormons Being Led Down Wrong Path By LDS Leaders

No doubt you haven't heard about Harry Reid attacking Christians last week because the media doesn't dare smear him. However, it is even more unlikely that you've heard about Reid smearing his own church leadership for being right-wingers.

Reid said people often question how he can be a Democrat and a Mormon, but called the social responsibility Democrats espouse a good fit with the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He questioned the guidance of some LDS Church leaders, though.

In remarks to the media following his address, Reid said that, "In the past years we've had some very prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, who are really right-wing people.

"Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path," he said.

Then there is this little tidbit from the AP:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Mormons were ill-served by the conservative politics of past church leaders.

Then after insulting past LDS leadership for being to conservative ... Reid politely tells LDS members that their values are all screwed up.

He said Mormons must recognize there are more important issues than abortion and gay marriage. Reid opposes abortion.

"We have a country that needs to do something about health care. Global warming is here. We have a president who doesn't know how to pronounce the words," Reid said, referring to President Bush.

Harry, ever the hypocrite, thinks it is the "wrong path" for LDS leadership to uphold their traditional conservative beliefs, but he deems it ok to alter those beliefs to better coincide with the liberal agenda? For crying out loud ... he told LDS members they should be more concerned with global warming than abortion!

When I spoke of this last night on my show, I received several calls from outraged LDS members who explained how the church goes out of its way to not endorse any candidate. Something that was stated very clearly in the RJ's article.

The church does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms. Spokeswoman Kim Farah said church officials would not comment on Reid's remarks.

To attack other faiths is bad enough, but to attack your own.

UPDATE: Judge Outlines 9 Errors In "An Inconvenient Truth"

This is an update to my previous post.

The judge did make it a requirement to notify students that the film was biased before they view it.

Here are the nine errors the judge outlined, but you could watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to get more.

UPDATE: Judge Orders Schools To Warn Students Of Al Gore Movie Bias

UPDATE:

A CNN meteorologist applauded the news that a judge has ordered schools to warn students of the bias in "An Inconvenient Truth."


You can read more about his comments, including a transcript, here.

UPDATE 2:

Al Gore is still refusing to accept any debate challenges on global warming. This is nothing new. He's been hiding like a scared little punk for years, and refusing to debate anyone on global warming. Junk Science issued a debate challenge to Al Gore years ago, and he has refused to accept the challenge.

ORIGINAL POST:

This judge knows that the inconvenient truth is that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not truthful.

Daily Mail:

Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.

Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.

He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.

Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.

This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

He said: 'The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.'

They will still be allowed to show the film, but with an asterisk.

Let's not forget that there has been a war waged by parents who know "An Inconvenient Truth" is scientifically inaccurate. They've been trying to get the movie banned altogether.

You must also consider that Al Gore was training over a 1000 people to go out and show his movie to kids.

Then there is the case of the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was made to counter "An Inconvenient Truth" specifically. This movie is not shown in schools, and was even the victim of scientists (who get a lot of funding from the global warming crowd) who wanted to censor the film.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only true culprit using the 'politics of fear' is the global warming crowd.

Less Than Half Of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming

So much for the "consensus" eh?

Those of us who follow the issue already know that there is clearly no consensus, and most of the scientists that support man-made global warming aren't in a field that would qualify them to make such claims.

Daily Tech:

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

Carbon Credits, Kyoto Causing Deforestation

One more chapter has been added to the growing novel of the carbon credit scam. This story picks up where Guyana getting uber pissed at Kyoto left off.

Essentially, the carbon credit scheme we have in place now is causing greedy money grabbers to cut down their forests so they can get paid.

Alter Net:

The current carbon market actually encourages cutting down some of the world's biggest forests, which would unleash tonnes of climate-warming carbon into the atmosphere, a new study reported on Monday.

Under the Kyoto Protocol aimed at stemming climate change, there is no profitable reason for the 10 countries and one French territory with 20 percent of Earth's intact tropical forest to maintain this resource, according to a study in the journal Public Library of Science Biology.

The Kyoto treaty and other talks on global warming focus on so-called carbon credits for countries and companies that plant new trees where forests have been destroyed.

At this point, there is no credit for countries that keep the forests they have, the study said.

"The countries that haven't really been the target of deforestation have nothing to sell because they haven't deforested anything," said Gustavo Fonseca, one of the study's authors.

Gee where have I heard that before.

"So that creates a perverse incentive for them to actually start deforesting, so that in the future, they might be allowed to actually cap-and-trade, as they call it: you put a cap on your deforestation and you trade that piece that hasn't been deforested," Fonseca said in a telephone interview.

The countries most at risk for this kind of deforestation, because they all have more than half their original forests intact, are Panama, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Peru, Belize, Gabon, Guyana, Suriname, Bhutan and Zambia, along with the French territory of French Guiana.

These places need a system of credits to involve them in the "global deforestation avoidance market," said Fonseca, of the World Bank's Global Environment Facility.

The carbon credit scam, just like the global warming scam, is nothing short of a for-profit business that deals with billions upon billions of dollars.

Bottled Water Industry Strikes Back ... Says Product Does Not Cause Global Warming

The argument has been around for a while now, but several US cities are encouraging people to stop drinking bottled water in order to help the planet. Today the bottled water industry fought back.

I'm still wondering why everyone is ignoring the new invention that solves the bottled water problem.

Remember this report about bottled water causing global warming?

Well here's the industry's response today:

The bottled water industry has hit back at claims that discarded plastic water bottles are contributing to global warming.

A statement was issued by the Bottled Water Information Office to say it is an environmentally friendly industry following the news that the City of New York is running a campaign to encourage people to ditch bottled water and drink tap water instead to protect the environment.

The BWIO said: “The very foundation of the industry is the protection of a precious natural resource and its use in a sustainable manner, and that ethos is applied in every aspect of the work of the industry.

“Bottled water is most commonly packaged in either plastic (PET) or glass, which is totally safe and conforms to strict regulations on health and safety. By far the majority of bottled water (93 per cent) comes in plastic bottles which is totally recyclable. Bottles also carry messages urging the purchaser to recycle after use. The rest (around 7 per cent) comes in glass bottles, which can also be placed for recycling.”

According to environmental groups, four out of five plastic water bottles end up on landfill sites and the production process contributes to global warming, but figures released by RECOUP show that 727 million plastic bottles were recycled in 2004.

Well there you have it. It's your fault that bottles don't get recycled ... not theirs. So quit crying about it.

There is an invention that solves this whole problem, and will provide precious oil ... yes oil.

New Scientist:

A US company is taking plastics recycling to another level – turning them back into the oil they were made from, and gas.

All that is needed, claims Global Resource Corporation (GRC), is a finely tuned microwave and – hey presto! – a mix of materials that were made from oil can be reduced back to oil and combustible gas (and a few leftovers).

Key to GRC’s process is a machine that uses 1200 different frequencies within the microwave range, which act on specific hydrocarbon materials. As the material is zapped at the appropriate wavelength, part of the hydrocarbons that make up the plastic and rubber in the material are broken down into diesel oil and combustible gas.

GRC's machine is called the Hawk-10. Its smaller incarnations look just like an industrial microwave with bits of machinery attached to it. Larger versions resemble a concrete mixer.

See problem solved. Buy bottled water, use, microwave, change oil in car, fill up gas tank. You can't get much more green than that.

Here's the video of the microwave at work:

Sports Cars To Be Outlawed

I have long wondered why our beloved SUV's have been labeled as the worst cars on the road for global warming. Why is it that we only talk about improving an SUV's gas mileage? After all, they are not the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road.

I suppose this could be just another way of communism working to attack the American family, or it could simply be that rich people who own carbon credit companies don't want to get rid of their toys. In either case, Europe is looking to ban sports cars.

Bloomberg:

If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history's dustbin.

Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality.

It's a nice touch how the article attacks people who have succeeded enough in life to afford such a car, isn't it? Bottom line is that sports cars get worse gas mileage than SUV's.

The 2007 list of least fuel efficient vehicles has various models of Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Bentley, Ferrari, Audi, and Mercedes ... no SUV's. Now it looks like someone has taken my question to heart.

Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as ``boys' toys.''

I've been saying something very similar for years. What possible reason could there be to have fast vehicles? Other than the "I want it" mentality. I even wrote about the government not being interested in reducing the speeds of vehicles because they will lose a major source of income by way of the speeding ticket.

All in all I believe that people should have the freedom to own what they wish, but at least a greenie somewhere has answered the question I have posed for so many years. Now we have to wait and see if jealousy of the rich, and environmentalism kills the sports car.

Fluorescent Bulbs Destroying The Planet

In yet another "I told you so" moment ... fluorescent bulbs are causing major damage to the planet. Not to mention the major health risks, and hidden costs associated with them that I warned you about here.

Fox News:

Highly efficient fluorescent light bulbs are widely touted as environmentally friendly, but they have created a recycling headache for the Environmental Protection Agency and local governments.

More often than not, their toxic ingredients simply end up in landfills, where the chemicals can leach into soil and water and poison fish and other wildlife.

Not only is mercury harmful to you and me, but it is extremely expensive to clean up, and it is a pollutant that should not be discarded in the trash.

The bulbs contain mercury and should not be tossed in the trash as are regular light bulbs.

"They're very efficient, but once they're used up, they become a ticking toxic time bomb," said Leonard Robinson, chief deputy director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. "They need to be captured and recycled."

Furthermore, many places don't provide options to recycle the cfl bulbs. Which means that people simply throw them away.

Now That Carbon Credits Have Been Shown To Be A Fraud ... Are People Still Dumb Enough To Fall For The Scam?

The answer is a resounding yes.

Remember how I told you carbon and methane credits were "The Ultimate Scam" before anyone was seriously looking at it? Since then every blog and talk show host has begun providing the evidence of the carbon credit scam. There has even been an investigation that concluded the companies involved in this lie were, in fact, scam artists. Now there is another investigation by the UN that shows further fraud by carbon credit companies.

The Guardian:

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to offset greenhouse gases emitted in the developed world by selling carbon credits from elsewhere, has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud by companies in the developing world, according to UN paperwork, an unpublished expert report and alarming feedback from projects on the ground.

So once again I present to you a harty "see, I told you so."

Not only have I told you repeatedly about the scam of carbon credits, but I've told you that governments were a part of the fraud, and that the outcome would be more greenhouse gas emissions ... not less. Turns out I'm a psychic!

Since these are used by European governments and corporations to justify increases in emissions, the effect is that in some cases malpractice at the CDM has added to the net amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

There is tons more evidence of fraud in the article.

I wonder what companies who push carbon credits while contributing to increased greenhouse emissions (like Ben & Jerry's) will say about the second full fledged investigation showing fraud. Hell, even Al Gore himself said being carbon neutral is a fraud.

If nothing else, the "credit" business has allowed free thinking entrepreneurs to come up with a "credit" for everything, and make a legitimate business venture out of the idea.

Growing Number Of Scientists Reversing Their Global Warming Theories

Funny thing is that more environmental scientist denounce the man-made theories than support it. It's always been that way, but some of the scientists (mostly out of the environmental field) are changing their minds that man causes global warming. Hell, how can you not with NASA telling you it's the sun every other day?

U.S. Senate:

Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report.

Now is when we will start to see the greenies who support the Senate when they work for climate change to start attacking the Senate as big oil shrills.

Follow the link to read who the scientists are, and their bio's.

Remember How The Polar Bears Are Dying Off? Yeah ... Their Population Has Increased

Just so everyone knows ... polar bears have existed in far warmer times on Earth than now. So they can, and will, survive our current warming trend. In fact, in Canada their population has increased dramatically since the 80's. The greenies are gonna hate this story.

NewsBusters:

As marvelously reported May 3 by the Christian Science Monitor (emphasis added throughout):

Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.

But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.

That's about a 150% increase in polar bear population. Pretty cool for a warming planet huh?

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a ... lot more bears," biologist Mitchell Taylor told the Nunatsiaq News of Iqaluit in the Arctic territory of Nunavut. Earlier, in a long telephone conversation, Dr. Taylor explained his conviction that threats to polar bears from global warming are exaggerated and that their numbers are increasing. He has studied the animals for the Nunavut government for two decades.

This is a great development. What a shame that the greenies won't announce this resounding success, and will instead decry the study as a lie.

Report: Bottled Water Is Destroying The Planet

I've been making this argument for a long time now. Never mind that bottled water removes all the minerals we are supposed to take into our bodies, but it is destroying the planet.

Mercury:

"Bottled water is really expensive, in terms of environmental costs and economically," said Ling Li, who wrote the report for the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute.

Most of you might be able to guess how bottled water is destroying our environment, but just in case you can't:

The environmental impact can start at the source, where some local streams and underground aquifers become depleted when there is "excessive withdrawal" for bottled water, according to the report.

In addition to the energy cost of producing, bottling, packaging, storing and shipping bottled water, there is also the environmental cost of the millions of tonnes of oil-derived plastic needed to make the bottles.

Are you getting the picture now?

There is also some mess about poor third world countries not being able to have bottled water, and that being a bad thing. I don't know why that isn't be heralded as an environmental benefit, but I guess anything that tells us we are oppressing people makes us feel good.

Congress Makes Its Move To Ban Incandescent Bulbs

Hot Air put this up this weekend, but I've been talking about it for a couple of weeks now. This weekend was my first wedding anniversary so they got the scoop, but not after I did a whole show about it on Friday. The Democrats in Congress are trying to require CFL bulbs everywhere while banning incandescent bulbs. There are some major problems with that.

First of all, as I wrote here, if you break a CFL bulb you can expect to spend about $2000 to clean it up. Why do you have to clean it up? Mercury vapor ... that's why. Mercury in its gas form is extremely dangerous. It not only poses a health hazard to humans, but it is an environmental pollutant. You can expect that $2000 to come out of your pocket as well because most insurance companies won't pay to have a pollutant cleaned by a hazmat team.

Since CFL bulbs claim to save you about $180 a year off your power bill ... if you break one you can expect it to take 11 years for the bulb to pay for itself.

There isn't much that is environmentally friendly about the CFL bulbs either. Ok so you don't think you'll break a CFL bulb, and have to worry about mercury poisoning. What happens when the bulb dies out? Bet you didn't think of that one did you? You're not allowed to throw them in the garbage to be sent to the dump. They must be disposed of properly because of the mercury. If everyone threw out their CFL bulbs in the trash we'd have a major mercury problem on our hands.

Just like you can't throw away motor oil ... you can't throw away mercury. You must get it to a designated disposal area, or to someone certified to dispose of it. You will pay for that service as well so you can expect that $180 annual savings to be just a little lower now. If you've ever tried to get rid of oil after you did your own oil change ... you know what I'm talking about.

If you don't have anyplace to take the CFL bulbs locally then you must deliver them to the proper dumping site ... often several miles outside of the city. Now you have wasted gas, and added more greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere. So much for being green. Some places don't even have these disposal facilities yet, and I know our local garbage service doesn't handle CFL bulbs.

As usual, Democrats are in a mad rush to pander to their greenie base in time for the next election, and haven't thought this through. CFL bulbs are not cost efficient, and they are far from environmentally friendly. LED lighting is, but it's still new and expensive, and the Dems can't wait that long to mobilize their base for an election. There will be a lot of costs, hassles, and probably injuries as a result of this legislation if it goes through.

Environmentalist Groups Says Children Are Bad For The Planet

God I love it when they release statements even more stupid than the statement before. The group is Optimum Population Trust, and they have a problem with families having children.

Source:

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

Just have one less child everyone, and everything will be ok. The didn't address the sun heating up in their statement so I have no idea how they will fix that little problem.

They went on to say that couples shouldn't have more than two kids. Isn't that about average anyway? What about the couples who only have one kid? Can they give their extra kid to another couple who would like three kids? It's the same amount of total children. We can make it like a carbon-credit for children. If you want to produce more pollutants (ie children) you can purchase a "baby-credit" to have another child. You would get this from a couple who has a credit, or two, left over from their children making. If they aren't going to use it they can then sell it to another couple to have an additional child. It's capitalistic and environmentally friendly!

Also, do you get a refund on your "baby-credits" if you have a miscarriage, or if your toddler should pass away? What would be the time period be before you can no longer redeem the credit, and try to have another child?

Clearly this group is in love with China's environmental program. China, the other day, revealed that their child limits (1 per family) had reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Apparently forced abortions can work.

This group needs to see the movie Children of Men to get an idea of what a world looks like without babies.