Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

Global Warming, global roundup.

February 23, 2007

Hi Brit,

Not surprisingly, Global Warming is rearing its ugly head in today’s news.

First, and also not surprisingly, we find that Al Gore lied in his alarmist “documentary” by indicating that hurricanes are wore lately because of, you guessed it, Global Warming.  However, in this article, Expert disputes storms’ link to global warming, we find just what the title says:

Chris Landsea, science and operations director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said the notion that global warming is causing an increase in hurricanes gained widespread attention after the stormy seasons of 2004 and 2005.

But that perception is wrong and the statistics don’t bear it out, Landsea told about 200 students and professors in the auditorium at USC’s geography building.

It seems that even the IPCC bought into the Gore propaganda, as on page 5 of the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report, they also blame Global Warming for an increase in intensity of tropical cyclones. 

Moving on we have, State distances itself from climatologist.  Here we find an expert “climate scientist,” who is experiencing political pressure because he does not hold with the consensus opinion on Climate Change.  The article mentions that this has also happened in other States than Delaware.  So much for “science.”

Which leaves us with the Business of Global Warming, China, India Smile as West Overpays for Climate: Andy Mukherjee.  You really should read this one as it’s choked full of information.  However, this bit bares repeating:

Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat’s flatulent contribution to global warming for A$8 ($6). The same company could also make your granny “carbon-neutral” at A$10 a year, according to a report in the Australian newspaper last weekend.

Then there’s Carbon Planet Pty, another company cited in the article. If you are hopping on a short-haul flight between Sydney and Canberra, and feeling bad about the damage you are doing to the ecosystem, you can buy credits worth A$23, for which the Adelaide-based company will guarantee to keep 1 ton of carbon dioxide out of the air for 100 years.

Well, I must go now as I have some scheming, ah, thinking to do.

the Grit

Advertisements

Stop and smell the Global Warming

February 20, 2007

Hi Brit,

I believe I may have mentioned that the Global Warming Scare is about forcing social change and making money?  If not, consider it mentioned now.  Here’s another little bit of the life style make over the environmentalist wackos are planning for our future, Humans’ beef with livestock: a warmer planet.  The reason for this is that part, a large part, of their supporting mob are the lunatic “meat is murder” crowd.  This is just a bone to keep them in lock step.  Of course, they haven’t taken into consideration that the cause behind the massive flatulence capacity of cattle is their vegetarian diet.  Remember the old saying: “beans, beans, precious fruit.  The more you eat the more you…”  This, if they were rational, would leave them in paradox, keeping them paralyzed with circular thought, until their heads exploded.  I’m afraid our luck isn’t that good, since they show few signs of thought.  I would also point out, that this another example of why it is so important to liberals to disarm the general public. 

the Grit

Some sense from Down Under

February 19, 2007

Hi Brit,

It appears that the good folks in Australia haven’t fallen as hard for the Global Warming hoax as we have up here, Scaremongers.  While the whole article by Cardinal Pell is worth reading, and it’s not very long 😉 there are a couple of quotes that are really good.  He starts with, “Global warming doomsdayers.”  I like that turn of phrase.  Besides, who should know more about doomsdayers than the Catholic Church?  The ending is great, “The science is more complicated than the propaganda!”  Which hits right to the heart of the problem with understanding Global Warming, and why it’s such a good scheme.  One would think that a list of temperature readings would be simple to understand, and, if we could see the raw data, it probably would be.  That, however, is keep carefully hidden in a web of statistics, corrected data, computer models, ice core samples, and graphs that have been “smoothed.”  When one gets right down to it, the Global Warming Alarmists sound more like lawyers than scientists.

the Grit

Conspiracy

February 19, 2007

Hi Grit

Sometimes I have this theory that the whole world is built on conspiracy because it seems that throughout the ages almost any major event, particularly a disaster or catastrophe, generates a plethora of conspiracy theories aimed at questioning the official versions of events.

Last night (18th February), I watched a programme on the BBC, which was about the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11. Whilst there might appear to be justification for some of the theories outlined, others to me were so bizarre as to be incomprehensible. To suggest that the twin towers fell as a result of demolition when there is clear visual evidence of planes flying into them, is sheer idiocy. Then, they add to this the (so-called) fact that the government destroyed a nearby building because it contained a CIA office which held evidence of this tragedy being a US government plot. Others were theorising that the passengers of flight 93 were abducted by government agents and that the plane did not crash. Yet more tried to suggest that the plot was known six months earlier, because a film was produced which had a similar story-line, only as is the case with films, that had a happier ending. I am actually surprised that no-one bought Tom Clancy into one of these mad theories, because in one of his books a passenger plane is flown into the White House, killing the President.

Of course, the US is not alone in this pursuit of conspiracy theories. Here in the UK, despite it being ten years ago, the conspiracy theories surrounding the death of the late Princess Diana still continue to flourish. These range from those who suggest that it was a government backed plot to kill the princess in order to avoid her marriage to a Middle-East family, which they felt might tarnish the Royal lineage, to those who believe that the Royal Family themselves were behind the accident.

Of course, conspiracies are not solely restricted to tragedies. One only has to look at the pro-global warming proponents conspiracy theories about denialists, or the “alien” theories surrounding crop circles, to see that whenever there is a major phenomena, the word “conspiracy” is one of the first to follow official explanations.

One has to wonder about the reasons and conditions that lead peoples minds to turn so readily towards conspiracy as an explanation. Whilst it is true that, particularly in politics on both sides of the Atlantic, there have been many political cover-ups and total lies, which make believing anything that comes out of a politician’s mouth difficult to believe, the vast majority of these are proven to be lies within months, if not sooner.

Perhaps it is the enormity and shock of these events that lead people to automatically question their occurance. In the two cases mentioned above, the events themselves were beyond the perception and belief of the ordinary member of the public. Such is the depth of the disbelief that it defies all reason and logic. Similarly, there is a lack of belief in a system or society structure that allows such events to occur and it affects the trust we have in that society. Thus, in order to fill the void of understanding and comprehension, perhaps we all look to ourselves to provide an explanation that is equally enormous and outrageous in its foundation.

Personally, I have my own conspiracy theory. I believe that there is a conspiracy between the conspiracy theorists to stop both lies and truth being believed.

the Brit

Yet another poke in the eye of Global Warming!

February 17, 2007

Hi Brit,

Once again I have the pleasure of poking the myth of Global Warming in the eye with a literary pointy stick.  According to the “science” behind the theory, the more CO2 in the air, the higher the temperature should climb.  Fair enough.  However, according to this, 2006 was Earth’s 5th warmest year, it would appear that CO2 levels have dropped, else, 2006 would have been the warmest year.  Other than making the obvious case that Global Warming rests on shaky foundations, the story is short enough to include completely, and make detailed commentary on.  My comments will start with ***

======================================== 

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century.

Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change.

*** What?  Temperature is temperature.  If you don’t have adequate measurements, concentrate on getting them, not “alternative methods!”  How many BILLIONS of dollars do you “scientists” need to scatter some thermometers around?  Of course, until you do, all the jabber about Global Warming has to be considered a total lie.

Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

*** Which is like mixing apples and oranges?  If the satellite measurements are reliable, why bother with other means?  Could it be that the satellites don’t confirm your predictions?

“2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, “and it may turn out to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements. Increased warmth is likely this year because an El Nino is underway in the tropical Pacific Ocean and because of continuing increases in human-made greenhouse gases.”

 *** Which is like, hedging one’s bet?  If El Nino is responsible, why, if not for propaganda purposes, blame greenhouse gases?  Can you prove that guess?  Obviously not, else you would.  Does your research grant depend on connecting Global Warming to human activity, obviously it does.

Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Climatologists say that warming is not due to local effects of heat pollution in urban areas, a point demonstrated by warming in remote areas far from major cities.

*** Except earlier in the article it was pointed out that adequate data is not available for remote regions.  So, this bit is obviously a lie.

In their analysis for the 2005 calendar year, GISS climatologists noted the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century.

*** Which leaves us with the obvious, and unanswered, question, why wasn’t 2006 even warmer?  I don’t recall seeing any reports that CO2 levels were declining, or levels for any other greenhouse gas going down for that matter.  This tends to indicate that the “climate scientists” may not know as much as they claim they do.

===========================================

Heck people, if this doesn’t wake you up to the fact that you are being played, I don’t know what will.  Make sure you click over to the original article; they deserve the traffic.

Oh, it occurred to me that even if I quit driving a vehicle powered by internal combustion and went back to a horse and buggy, these same twits would be bitching that my equines were causing Global Warming because of their flatulence. 

the Grit

Global warming and the Sun

February 17, 2007

Hey Grit

I have been told in the past that I should change the UK newspaper that I use to do research on the Global Warming issue, so this week I did just that, moving up to the highly respected UK Sunday Times, a broadsheet paper that prides itself on the educational, intellectual and scientific approach to most issues, and what did I find? Nothing less than another article dealing with a cautionary message to those in the IPCC who remain dogmatic regarding their findings.

I have to say from the outset that the author of the article, Nigil Calder, is also the co-author of the book that illustrates the cosmic ray effect on Global Warming, that I mentioned in an earlier post. However, he is also a former editor of the very prestigious publication “New Scientist.” Therefore, one has to take notice of his views. There are a number of aspects of the article that deserve attention.

Mr Calder mentions the potential error of taking a “90% certainty” as a basis for accurate action, drawing an analogy with the scientifice comment made in 1958 when it was said to be 90% certain that we could control nuclear fusion, a comment that has subsequently proven to be totally wrong. However, as we know, having start on the route of developing nuclear power no-one knows how to stop the effects of it. A similar situation could develop with controlling global warming. If we do not understand fully the implications of the problem, how the heck can we be sure that remedial actions are controlable? 

Mr Calder also confirms that the IPCC are paying too little regard to the sun as a contributory cause of Global Warming and that, if this is not taken into account, the planned man-made adjustments may be too much, causing the reverse of the result sought, in other words, too much cooling. There is a level of CO2 that is necessary to maintain the equilibruium of the planet. If we reduce our emissions by too great a level and then find that cosmic activity does have a significant impact, we may find ourselves sometime in the future yelling “light the fires again!”

What does seem strange to me is, that whilst many are just dismissing this as just a “denialist” view, it is being treated seriously enough in scientific circles for a major research study to be undertaken. Does this not suggest that it is something that those intent on proving man-made global warming have failed to take into account sufficiently in their own researches? It is this lop-sided and unbalanced approach to scientific research that always bothers me.

Unlike the politicians on Global Warming, Mr Calder does not claim to have all the answers, but he reasonably suggests that the issues should be approached with caution. I repeat my previous comment that the problem with mainstream research is the direction given within the original hypothesis. If you say to someone “I want to find out how much global warming is due to man” the sub-conscious inclination is to prove that fact and, to some degree, this tends to blind them to the opposite viewpoint. To get an accurate and balanced view one needs to research the positive and negative at the same time, then compare the findings.

The have been too many instances in past research where findings have been stated as being absolute facts and solutions, only to find later that either they were not, or the remedy produced was more harmful than the original problem. I fear that we are in danger of taking this same route with global warming unless we proceed with care.

the Brit

Well, well, more bad news for Al Gore.

February 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but news is news.  It would seem that there is another blow to the crotch of the Church of Global Warming riding the wires of the press services, not that it will make it to TV or anything higher than page 30 of a major paper, Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions.  Now, just the title should be enough to make us Deniers sing and dance, but, buried in the report, is this gem, “Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe.”  This brings us back to the methodology the “climate scientists” use to “average” temperature data in order to prove their pre-decided conclusion of Global Warming.  Using this method, each of these weather stations is given the same weight as hundreds of stations in other areas.  Obviously, this has the potential to propagate even tiny errors into serious ones, bringing the whole data set the theory is based on into question.  It’s also interesting to note that the number of weather stations in the Arctic, where the most Warming is said to be occurring, is never mentioned.  For that matter, I spent an hour or two not that long ago trying to find that information on the net, with no success.  Now, I may not be the best researcher, but I can find out what Britney Spears’ beaver looks like, the background of the head writer of the latest IPCC report, raw economic data on almost any country, that John Kerry had the worst attendance record in the Senate last year, and the lyrics to almost any song ever recorded.  That something as important as the number of weather stations in the Arctic doesn’t jump off the screen with a simple Google search, makes me very suspicious of the data.  I would say that I’d just look it up in the latest IPCC report, but only the summary of that has been written.  While we are on the subject of raw data to support Global Warming, just try to find the actual temperature data record.  If you can find it, kindly leave me a link.

the Grit

Global Warming, following the money trail

February 15, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve said before that the case for “Global Warming, end of the world so we must act NOW” is motived more by money and politics than science.  It seems that I am not alone in this belief, On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!  However, even though the lie of Global Warming is now so entrenched in the public mind that there is no stopping these fear mongers from winning, we can still learn some lessons from this gigantic and corrupt conspiracy.

1.  Always follow the money before trusting anyone’s motives.

2.  Never, under any circumstances, ever, trust anyone either employed by, or connected to, the United Nations.

3.  It’s past time to question why scientific research needs to be funded by the Government.

4.  It’s way past time to question our continued funding of the UN.

5.  Most politicians get their jobs by being good liars.  Why do we expect them to change their ways once they get in office?

6.  We, as a country, have few friends outside our boarders.  We should start acting like it.

7.  Almost all fanatics, be they religious, political, or environmentalists, are evil and should be dealt with accordingly.

the Grit

Al Gore, wrong again.

February 14, 2007

Hi Brit,

By now I’m sure you’ve seen the glacier melting scene from Al Gore’s propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Well, it turns out that the Global Warming alarmist wasn’t telling the whole truth:

Study: Glacier melting can be variable

Experts question theory on global warming

It appears that the Climate Change fanatics have been cherry picking the data they consider, and not bothering to mention that not all glaciers show signs of melting or behave in consistent ways.  Of course, that would make the theory easier to support and, as a minor benefit, keep billions of dollars in research funding poring into the coffers of an otherwise minor area of science. 

the Grit

MP travel expenses

February 14, 2007

Hi Grit

All of the debate about travel costs, its effects on Global Warming and the need to conserve energy is generated by politicians. However, today figures have been published that show just how two-faced these people can be, especially in the UK. You need to bear in mind that there are around 634 MP’s and that the travel expenses are in addition to their salary and other expenses.

The current report reveals that the cost of MP’s travel for 2005-06 was a staggering £4.5 million ($9 Million). Of this £2 million was spent on car travel, £1.5 million on trains and £1 million on Flights. This equates to over £7,000 per MP, or £136 per week, and these figures are rising. However, as can be seen from the report, some MP’s are claiming as much as £44,000 per year, an incredible £850 per week!

There are a number of issues here. Firstly, these same MP’s are telling us to cut down on our road travelling, whilst at the same time failing to take their own advice. On the one hand the government is saying that the congestion on the roads is reaching a gridlock position, yet at the same time over 44% of their own travel is adding to the problem. The difference is that we, as lowly citizens, will not be able to reclaim any “rush hour” mileage cost imposed upon us, whilst the MP will be reimbursed. Every £1 an employee spends on mileage costs them £1.30 of gross income.

Secondly, they keep saying that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce energy consumption, at the same time as they are increasing their own (or perhaps we should all walk so that they can travel in luxury!). Our tax authorities penalise us for the type of vehicle that we drive. For example, the tax levels on a 4×4 (SUV) are far more stingent than a small saloon. For an MP this is not a problem as they reclaim all of their expenses direct from the government.

Thirdly, there are no budget constraints on MP spending. They do not have to answer to anyone regarding the level of their expenditure. Any family is aware that they have to budget their expenditure to match their disposable income, or they will suffer the problems of escalating debt. Similarly, every employee knows that their expenses will not be sanctioned by their employer if it is considered to be unreasonable, and that continual extravagance will be rewarded with unemployment. A corporation is aware that cost control is vital to attracting business growth. An Mp’s attitude is directly opposite to all of these, safe in the knowledge that Joe public will be made to pay for their representative’s extravagance through the tax system, either directly or by stealth.

Standing alone, the MP’s travel expenses are bad enough, but when you add to this their other annual expenses, which on average work out at £110,000 ($220,000) each, and their salary of between £57,000 and £150,000 depending upon their position, it all adds up to an enormous public cost. What is worrying is that this represents just a small fraction of the cost of our government and civil service. In my view the time for “accountability of government” is NOW!

the Brit 

   

Great, new evidence of Global Cooling!

February 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

Great news on the Global Warming front!  “Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. ”  Since we had the hottest year on record was 2005, then, logically, if last year wasn’t warmer, we are cooling.  What fantastic news!  This, of course, means that we can call off all the Climate Change taxes, cut the billions of dollars in research grants for “climate scientists”, and go back to spending that money on fighting disease, poverty, and starvation.  Oh, and we can officially tell AlGore to kiss the collective Global Ass.  Pucker up you evil tobacco farmer!

 The article also adds, “Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula.”  Which, obviously, means it’s not a GLOBAL phenomena, but appears to be localized to the poles.  It would seem that the “climate scientists” need to come up with a better story to justify the massive investment in their theorizing.

the Grit

Global Warming and cosmic rays

February 12, 2007

Hi Grit

Yet again, hard on the heels of a report saying that humans are creating Global Warming and it is nearly too late to do anything about it, we find another contradictory report. This time it is in the Sunday Telegraph (11 Feb).  To be fair this report is not saying that man is not contributing to Global Warming, just that, because of the effects that cosmic rays are having, the extent of man’s effect, and its growth pattern may have been seriously miscalculated.

The theory behind this research is that the cosmic rays activity affect the cloud cover that the earth experiences. The higher the cosmic ray activity, the lower the cloud cover and the more warming occurs. At present we are in such a high cosmic ray activity period. If correct, this research means that the calculations used in the IPCC report need to be adjusted. Although there are some scientists who dismiss these claims, it is important enough for a group of at least 60 to conduct tests to check its validity. 

You will hardly be surprised to note that this report was relegated to page 16 of the newspaper in question, rather than the front page. However, this is not my main criticism. It is obvious from the comments of the scientists in question that they are not “denialists.” They accept that man does contribute to global warming, just that the rate is significantly different than has been reported. My problem is, as I have mentioned before, the lack of full research when addressing an issue such as climate change. Three points I would like to make, which I have probably covered before.

Firstly, if one is researching a subject, it is encumbent upon the researcher to fully address and study issues that contradict the findings. This does not appear to have been done in the case of cosmic activity, as the fact that only now 60 scientists are going to do research suggests.

Secondly, in environmental issues the accuracy of numerical findings is paramount. This is important so that one can accurately measure the impact and the level of remedy needed. In this case, if cosmic rays are proved have a significant effect it means that man’s response can be more controlled, accurate and less damaging both to the environment and the economic structure than has been suggested by the IPCC. As has been mentioned in other posts, overkill responses to these issues can be just as damaging to the environment as the global warming itself.

Thirdly, the habit of labelling people because they do not fully accept ones findings, in this case as denialists or sceptics, is becoming boring and counter-productive. There are no absolutes in science. The scientists who have come up with this current research cannot be labelled as sceptics or denialists, because they accept the concept of Global Warming and man’s contribution. All they are saying is get the facts straight. I wonder if those who support the IPCC report will respond positively to this challenge?

It is time to stop the media dramatics and hype and approach this subject on a sensible, factual discussion basis.

the Brit

Stupid liberals!

February 11, 2007

Hi Brit,

I was reading this, Hybrid-Only Car Service Launches in San Francisco, and it hit me as to just how stupid liberals are, as a general rule.  The key point in this is that, according to the story, the idea is to make rich people flying into Nanny Pelosi’s home town feel better by taking “green” transportation around town, after dumping untold tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere while flying in a fuel waisting jet.  Then I read the details, and was shocked.  Keep in mind that the article is tainted with the usual liberal bias, even though it does throw in a tiny hit about the jet travel thing, but it also includes, “with a fleet of leather-seated Priuses.”  I’m sure that the reporter, not knowing squat about Global Warming, didn’t think twice about this.  However, the secondary part of the Climate Change Conspiracy, the one that really gets the radical liberals frothing at the mouth over its potential for bringing about social change, is the implication of cow farts in heating up the globe.  That would, of course, be the methane content in the massive flatulence produced by our bovine food supply, which is an excuse for left wing groups to insist everyone turn vegetarian.  Thus the paradoxical nature of a “green” car with leather seats.  Oh, well, I am assuming that the leather was produced from cow hide and not Jews, but that is most likely a safe assumption.

the Grit

This is most UNusual.

February 11, 2007

Hi Brit,

I did not know that this was possible, but the UN just fired a staff member for being UNqualified, U.N. Fired Staff Members With Academic Degrees From Diploma Mill.  This is disturbing on several levels. 

First, how can such a massive bureaucracy not have several people who have nothing else to do but check the backgrounds of job applicants?  What have they instituted the Old World tradition of buying one’s job?

Second, since the position filled by the UNcredentialed individual is chief of the Human Resources Information Technology Section, how could someone without the proper education do the job to begin with?  Perhaps, besides improving their applicant screening process, the UN needs to prune some of the deadwood from their organizational charts.

Third, this does cast some light on the lack of educational credential listings for the “scientists” working for the IPCC.  Could this be the reason for keeping that information secret?

On the bright side, one down, tens of thousands to go.

the Grit

Disorder in the ranks of Global Warming fanatics?

February 10, 2007

Hi Brit,

It seems that the Church of Global Warming should pick a High Priest to coordinate things.

On one hand we have, Congress eyes legislation to fight climate change (which I mentioned previously,) many countries are trying to implement the Kyoto Treats, and the EU is in the process of adding all sorts of new environmental laws.

On the other hand, we have, Climate Change Verdict: Science Debate Ends, Solution Debate Begins.  While I contest the “Science debate ends” part, having posted about this several times in the recent past, I point out the “Solution debate begins” part, as it relates to what I just mentioned above.  If there is still debate, even among the ranks of the faithful, as to what to do about Global Warming, then a rational person would have to question how our politicians can know what laws to pass to fix it?  If they understand things better than the Climate Scientists on who’s’ knowledge rests the concept and proof of Global Warming, perhaps they should write the IPCC reports on the subject.  Wait, sorry, I forgot, they did.  Still, one would think that some scientific basis would be needed to formulate solutions to a real problem.

On the gripping hand, I found this, UTSA researchers examine effects of global warming on Antarctic.  Now, call me crazy, but I thought this was “settled science,” and we know that the Antarctic ice is melting.  So, a rational person must ask, why are we waisting money examining things we already know all about?  Shouldn’t those funds be going to find a solution to Global Warming, or at least to implementing the solutions the politicians already seem to know about?

I have to say, Global Warming fanatics, y’all really should anoint a High Priest in an effort to get your act together.  How about AlGore?

the Grit

How long can you hold your breath?

February 9, 2007

Hi Brit,

I just read this, Congress eyes legislation to fight climate change, and immediately asked myself “how long can I hold my breath?”  After all, each of us expel the Evil Greenhouse Gas CO2 with each breath, and, now that Nanny Pelosi has the issue firmly clinched in her dentures, I expect that soon we will be faced with a Breath Tax, to encourage us to slow down our individual contributions to Global Warming.  By my quick, and not necessarily totally accurate, calculations, we in the US can offset her jet set life style if we each take 30 fewer breaths per day.  Of course, this increased interest in decreasing our breath rates will have at least one benefit, that being, getting some of the joggers off the road.

Although, considering that:

The White House said Snow was referring to figures from the International Energy Agency that from 2000 to 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion grew by 1.7 percent, while in the European Union such emissions grew by 5 percent.  From: U.S. cuts emissions better than Europe: White House.

It would seem obvious to any rational person, thus excluding most Democrats I admit, that we are on the correct path to achieve the liberal agenda of reducing CO2 emissions without further Government meddling.  With liberals in control, of course, they will ignore the facts, raise taxes and piddle around in our lives until they manage to, not only, increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but, also, screw up our economy.  Typical.

the Grit

Global Warming – Branson to the rescue

February 9, 2007

We can rest easy in our beds tonight, knowing that the solution to global warming is in safe hands. One of our most popular entrepreneurs, Richard Branson, has come up the solution. His idea is to offer a $25 million dollar prize to the first scientist to come up with a solution to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

There are of course three problems here. One is that, if the past is anything to go by, it will be difficult to get scientific agreement. Two, by the time such a project is completed it will be too late and three, how will the machine or whatever be able to distinguish between so-called man-made emissions and natural emissions?

However, not to miss the opportunity to accumulate some wealth, I have come up with a couple of ideas you might want to help me with Grit.

PROJECT ONE 

STEP ONE – Build one chimney in the middle of the Atlantic.  It needs to be 15 miles high and 100 feet in diameter and stand on pylons sunk into the earth.

STEP TWO – Build a second chimney at a spot 180 degrees around the earth from the first chimney with the same dimensions.

STEP THREE – two miles above the earth’s surface around each chimney attach a network of horizontal pipes, one for each country within that chimneys hemisphere. The lengths of these pipes will be to be custom made so that they extend to reach each individual country.

STEP FOUR – At the end of each pipe attach a multi head large extractor fan, rather like a shower head. These will be directed to all points of the compass so that there is even coverage.

JOB DONE. Caution. All of the extractor fans will need to be turned on simultaneously to avoid unbalancing the earth.

PROJECT TWO

Possibly a more simple solution. I am given to understand that man-made emissions can be collected in containers of some nature. Therefore why don’t we constuct a fleet of CO2 garbage shuttles capable of holding these containers and run a weekly CO2 disposal service. By this route we can dump the emissions somewhere in outer space and give the problem to another galaxy.

the Brit

PS: Where do we find the application forms for the $25 million? 

The Vault reveals another sign…

February 9, 2007

Hi Brit,

I hate to start the day with doomsday news, but this story, ‘Doomsday vault’ to resist global warming effects, has to be explored.  Making the assumption that the Norwegians aren’t completely insane, this effort is obviously preparation for the exodus prior to the end of the world in 2012.  Of course, these seeds are probably going to be Mars bound.  If you need proof of the connection, then consider this, “The entry to the vault, which will shoot out of the mountainside, will be a narrow triangular portal made of cement and steel, illuminated with artwork that changes according to the Arctic light.”  Compare that to the back of the Great Seal of the United States, designed by Free Masons.  Then, consider that the Vault contains two chambers connected by sloping tunnels, much like the Great Pyramid at Giza, built by the people who started the Free Masons.

the Grit

Global Warming, the political battle.

February 7, 2007

Hi Brit,

As we’ve discussed before, Global Warming has gone beyond science and is now a political issue.  For instance, in today’s news I’ve found two instances of Climate Scientists being attacked by the news media and/or politicians just for expressing their professional opinion that Global Warming facts don’t fit the politically correct version of the United Nations’ lap dog group, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change.)

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

Del. scientist’s view on climate change criticized

If you need more proof that this issue is now all about politics, check out this poll of politicians.  Not only does it show that Global Warming has moved into the realm of politics, it makes it clear that our two parties have chosen sides. 

the Grit

Get the taboggan out – snow is coming!

February 6, 2007

Hi Brit

The met office in the UK has issued a weather warning for tomorrow (Wednesday), saying that there is likely to be up to 6 inches snow in some areas tomorrow, which is likely to disrupt just about everything.

As we have had the occasional spurts of weather like this during the past three decades or so of my life, if not longer, I fail to see why suddenly it is becoming such a big issue. Of course it is a natural excuse for railways to use to explain erratic services; highway rush hour jams and millions of people to take the day off work, but what’s new?

It seems to me that the media is again using “drama speeches” to help support their “Global Warming” circus.

the Brit