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.

Whole Foods: Shoplifters Are Customers Too. Leave Them Alone.

Notice I didn't use quotes in that title. Whole Foods didn't literally say that, but they essentially said that when they fired an employee who stopped a shoplifter in Ann Arbor.

MLive.com:

John Schultz says he lost his job at Whole Foods Market in Ann Arbor after he tried to stop a shoplifter from making a getaway. But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer - even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods.

There are several factors that need to be considered for this man's future lawsuit against Whole Foods. Let's examine the first one here in this paragraph. He was fired for "physically touching a customer." Since when are shoplifters customers? A customer is someone who pays for a good or service. You don't pay ... you aren't a customer.

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store.

Point two is that he had clocked out. In other words ... he was not on company time. If he doesn't get paid for that time ... he isn't on the job. Things get sketchy when you fire someone who wasn't on the job.

He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot.

The third point is that he was assisting the manager (his boss) after being requested to do so. What's the point in chasing someone down, and asking others to help you chase them down if you won't do anything when you catch up to the crook? Now his manager becomes liable for his actions because he requested assistance.

The final point is that this did not happen on Whole Foods property. How can you fire an employee for stopping a shoplifter, while not on the clock, and not on company property?

With this logic, an employee could be fired for stopping a bank robber after work because the bank robber was in Whole Foods earlier that day. I smell a windfall in this man's future.

Schultz said he told the shoplifter he was making a citizens arrest and to wait for the police to arrive, but the shoplifter broke away from the group and ran across Washtenaw Avenue and toward a gas station at the corner of Huron Parkway.

Before the man could cross Huron Parkway, Schultz caught up and grabbed the man's jacket and put his leg behind the man's legs. When the manager arrived at the intersection, Schultz said, the manager told him to release the shoplifter, and he complied, and the shoplifter got away.

Schultz said he was called to the store's office the next day, on Christmas Eve, and was fired because he violated a company policy prohibiting employees from having any physical contact with a customer.

Again, he didn't touch a customer at all.

So what was Whole Foods' response to the firing?

Kate Klotz, a company spokesperson, said the policy is clear and listed in a booklet that all employees have to acknowledge that they received before they can start work.

"The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination," said Klotz.

Schultz said he acted as a private citizen on property that isn't owned by Whole Foods, but Klotz said where the incident happened doesn't change the policy.

"He is still considered an employee of Whole Foods Market regardless of where he was and what was happening," she said.

I would love to see the company policy that this man signed when he was hired 5 years ago. Does it really say that shoplifters are customers? I doubt it.

If merely touching the shoplifter was grounds for termination then why even chase him out of the store? Keep in mind that the store's manager gave chase, and asked for assistence which this man provided while on his own time.

As for the Whole Foods rep saying that he is considered a Whole Foods employee "regardless of where he was and what was happening" is ludicrous, and the worst kind of stupid. I refer you to my argument above about him preventing a bank robber from getting away because he was in Whole Foods earlier that day.

Schultz is right on by saying he acted as a private citizen on his own time while not on company property. He is given the right to make a citizen's arrest by the Constitution. Whole Foods has no authority to remove Schultz's constitutional protections.

What would you expect from a store run by a bunch of hippies. Physical violence won't be tolerated ... even in self defense of the store's bottom line.

Peace, Love and Masturbation!

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.

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.

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.

Eco-Terrorists Attempt Assassination Of UCLA Doctor

Greenies gone wild!

Eco-terrorists with the Animal Liberation Brigade planted a bomb on Arthur Rosenbaum's car in an attempt to murder him, and with no regard to his family.

LA Weekly:

Rosenbaum, a highly regarded pediatric ophthalmologist who had been regularly harassed by animal-rights activists for his research work with cats and rhesus monkeys at the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA, noticed a device underneath his luxury sedan. The bomb squad was dispatched to the scene and hauled away a makeshift — but deadly — explosive. A faulty fuse was the only reason it didn’t go off.

Three days later, the so-called Animal Liberation Brigade sent a typo-riddled “communiqué” to the North American Animal Liberation Press Office in Los Angeles. It was posted on the NAALPO Web site:

“130am on the twenty forth of june: 1 gallon of fuel was placed and set a light under the right front corner of Arthur Rosenbaums large white shiney BMW.

“He and his wife ..., living at ... in la, are the target of rebellion for the vile and evil things he does to primates at UCLA. We have seen by our own eyes the torture on fully concious primates in his lab. We have heard their whimpers and screeches of pain. Seeing this drove one of us to rush out and vomit. We have seen hell and its in Rosenbaums lab.

“Rosenbaum, you need to watch your back because next time you are in the operating room or walking to your office you just might be facing injections into your eyes like the primates, you sick twisted fuck.

“Demonstrators need to realize that just demonstrating won’t stop this kind of evil. Look up Arthur Rosenbaum to find out about his experiment from two thousand four threw two thousand seven. ‘animal liberation brigade’”

This isn't the first encounter with the greenies either.

For several years now, Rosenbaum and other faculty members at UCLA Medical Center have been targeted by animal-rights activists outraged by their experiments on primates. The researchers have endured crank phone calls, menacing e-mails and intimidating threats screamed over bullhorns in the middle of the night in front of their homes.

But with the attempted bombing of Rosenbaum, and the attempted Molotov cocktail bombing last year of UCLA researcher Lynn Fairbanks in Bel-Air, activists are no longer content with talking a mean game — they now want blood.

There appears to be dubious links to the Animal Liberation Front and this group, but they do operate as a separate entity.

As you know ... the Terrorism Knowledge Base is the premier source for terrorism information anywhere. Well, their take on the ALB should be enough for you to take this group seriously.

The Revolutionary Cells-Animal Liberation Brigade is an unusually violent animal-rights terrorist movement.

Helluva opening statement isn't it?

Vegans Won't Have Sex With Meat Eaters

I realize this is not really news worthy as no one cares what these vegans think, but I thought I would take the opportunity to point out some hypocrisy.

Some Paper:

No sex, please, you're a carnivore.

A new phenomenon in New Zealand is taking the idea of you are what you eat to the extreme.

Vegansexuals are people who do not eat any meat or animal products, and who choose not to be sexually intimate with non-vegan partners whose bodies, they say, are made up of dead animals.

The title of the piece is "Carnivore Sex Off The Menu." I hate to point out the obvious, but people who eat meat aren't carnivores ... they're omnivores. Just like all humans are by design.

I would also like to point out that there is no human body that is free of something that was once alive. Even the strictest vegans are responsible for some member of the animal kingdom dying. Even if it's only an insect, but I guess the poor insects don't get the love from vegans.

Cruelty-Free Consumption in New Zealand: A National Report on the Perspectives and Experiences of Vegetarians and other Ethical Consumers asked 157 people nationwide about everything from battery chickens to sexual preferences.

Many female respondents described being attracted to people who ate meat, but said they did not want to have sex with meat-eaters because their bodies were made up of animal carcasses.

Again, there is no such thing a cruelty-free consumption. Everything we take into our bodies has some form of life on it, and thus dies.

One vegan respondent from Christchurch said: "I believe we are what we consume, so I really struggle with bodily fluids, especially sexually."

Another Christchurch vegan said she found non-vegans attractive, but would not want to be physically close to them.

"I would not want to be intimate with someone whose body is literally made up from the bodies of others who have died for their sustenance," she said.

This is where it gets funny, and very hypocritical.

The first lady sounded like a prude, and I won't address her issue with bodily fluids. The second, however, intrigues me.

She won't have sex with someone who eats meat because something "died for their sustenance?" Well, I would refuse to have sex with her because her body is full of others who've died for HER sustenance. Plants are, after all, living, breathing, feeling creatures. How could I live with myself knowing that she not only was willing to kill a living creature, but to torture said creature by pulling off its equivalent to fingers, and arms?

Nichola Kriek could understand people not wanting to get too close to non-vegan or non-vegetarians.

"When you are vegan or vegetarian, you are very aware that when people eat a meaty diet, they are kind of a graveyard for animals," she said.

Yeah, and your body is a graveyard to billions of living organisms ... including plants.

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.

Military Says Sonar Not A Danger To Fish

I'll be the first to admit this ... I don't know much about sonar. I was infantry, and never had a desire to be in the Navy. My uncles, however, are divers. They have said that sonar will kill all sorts of things ... including humans. How did they study that? I don't know, google it on your own.

The interesting thing about this study is that it was trout only. So does testing only one fish give results for all fish?

Fox News:

The military's use of sonar poses no threat to fish, a new study suggests.

The study was funded by the military, however, and was very narrow in scope: It involved only trout.

The finding, detailed in the July issue of the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, showed that rainbow trout exposed to high-intensity, low-frequency sonar experienced only a small and presumably temporary decline in hearing sensitivity.

The new study, funded by the Navy, was designed to explore the effects of Navy ship sonar on fish swimming nearby.

Investigators found no damage to the fish's inner ears after they underwent intense sonar exposure, even several days afterward.

The whole subject gives me a headache.

Salad Is Murder

I have long been perplexed by the greenies who refuse to eat meat because they believe they would be murdering the animal. This same group of people has lobbied for decades to prove that plants are living creatures. They then eat the plants, which they say are alive, while refusing to eat meat because the animal is alive. Hypocrisy, I know.

Furthermore, I remember hearing these people talk about how you are "hurting" or "torturing" trees and plants if you pull off a branch or leaf. They often equate it with pulling off one of your fingers, or limbs. With that logic ... eating a salad is far more cruel than eating meat. Think about it ... you go up to a living creature (plant), pull off a few limbs to add to your salad, eat it, and repeat over and over again. At least the cow only dies once, and doesn't have to face the torment of a death by a thousand cuts.

It's all very confusing.

Anyway, it now seems that there is another problem with salad ... it is destroying the planet. At least that's what a couple of scientists in Europe are saying.

Sunday Morning Herald:

HUMANS are just one of the millions of species on Earth, but we use up almost a quarter of the sun's energy captured by plants - the most of any species.

The human dominance of this natural resource is affecting other species, reducing the amount of energy available to them by almost 10 per cent, scientists report.

Researchers said the findings showed humans were using "a remarkable share" of the earth's plant productivity "to meet the needs and wants of one species".

There are actually a couple of directions we can take this so called "finding."

Obviously this is a "hate humans" piece. There seems to be an awful lot of those popping up lately, and it makes you wonder why there are so many people who hate themselves out there.

So humans are using an unfair amount of the sun eh? There goes the case for solar power. If we already use too much of the sun's energy then we can't in good conscience develop, and utilize, solar power. That isn't quite what these scientists are saying in this report, but it warrants mentioning.

What they are saying is that humans make too many salads.

This showed humans used 24 per cent of the energy that was captured by plants. More than half of this was due to the harvesting of crops or other plants.

An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource.

"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy."

They also warn all of us about biofuels, and the environmental impact of using them. That's something I've been telling you about for a long time now.

They also warned that the increased use of biofuels - such as ethanol and canola - should be viewed cautiously, given the potential for further pressure on ecosystems.

Looks like we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Either we use biofuels, and solar energy in order to reduce our "footprint" and destroy the planet, or we do nothing and destroy the planet.

Suspected Eco-Terrorist Caught In Colorado

I stress the "suspected" part, but the evidence is compelling to say the least. He had an bunch of weapons, explosives materials, and magazines published by the Animal Liberation Front (known terrorist group). So, the evidence is like I said ... pretty compelling.

CBS Denver:

Ronald Swerlein, 50, was arrested last weekend on suspicion of possessing and making explosives. He told police he was developing fuel for model rockets.

Police Sgt. Tim Lewis said investigators have found no indication Swerlein intended to attack anyone or that he was working with anyone else.

So far, so good.

Swerlein was arrested Sunday after the initial police search of his home. A second search on Tuesday turned up four magazines from the Animal Liberation Front, Lewis said. The magazines described arsons and the use of explosives claimed by the group, a search warrant affidavit said.

The FBI's top terrorism officer has described ALF as a terrorist group that uses criminal violence against the fur industry, restaurants and animal research labs. On its Web site, ALF says it works to reduce animal suffering and that its actions "may be against the law."

Now ... so far, not so good.

Police first searched Swerlein's home on June 15 after a neighbor reported hearing three explosions at the house three days earlier. He was arrested on Sunday after police confirmed the nature of chemicals found in the house.

Police said the 400 chemicals they found included homemade nitroglycerin and MEKP, a volatile chemical that had been stabilized and hidden in the basement.

Officers said they also found model rockets, rocket kits and engines, a launching pad for model rockets, books on homemade explosives, expensive chemistry glassware, a handwritten "to-do" list and warning note, flare guns, a Taser weapon and three metal grenade shells.

Police would not discuss the contents of the list or the note.

Now throw in that he had 7 handguns, and you have yourself a terrorist in the making.

While he did have model rockets ... it doesn't explain everything in his possession. It is possible that was his cover story from the get go as well.

Forgive me here ... I don't make model rockets, but I'm assuming a book on homemade explosives isn't real relevant to that hobby. The taser and flare guns are no big deal either, and we don't know what was in the "warning note."

MEKP is used by hobbyists in casting, but was also the suspected explosive to be used in the 2006 aircraft plot to blow up a bunch of planes heading to the US.

The one that gets me is the nitroglycerin, and grenade shells. He could easily make an improvised anti-personnel explosive with those two materials. I wonder if they found any BB's as well?

Anyway, you throw it all together with the ALF magazines, and this guy will likely be convicted of some minor infraction.

Factcheck Rips Dem Candidates On Flex Fuels

I won't bore you with all of the other alternatives to gasoline that are far better than ethanol.

Nor will I bore you with how much money politicians have in the company who has a near monopoly on ethanol in the US (Archer Daniel Midland), or that ADM is one of the largest companies in the world, and is one of the worst polluters in the US.

I will simply provide you with this link to a very clear, unbiased article outlining that ethanol is not what it appears to be ... just yet.

BONUS:

If you are interested in a hot rod that goes 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds, is 100% electric, gets the equivalent of 135 mpg, and looks like this:


GO HERE!

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.