Media

On the new episode of Mythbusters tonight, they compared automobiles and motorcycles to determine which was "better for the environment".

One of their benchmarks was the amount of CO2 emitted by each. They're calling CO2 a pollutant which "contributes to global warming". Busting one myth and promoting another? I just lost some respect for Jamie and Adam.

'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'

This is old news. Many have exposed the Green Agenda for what it is, a means of population control/reduction, and de-industrialization of the West. This just proves the point so many of us have been making.

Greens don't want cheap, clean energy. They want fewer humans on the planet, but are incredibly unwilling to lead by example.

If you watch American television, you may often see the advertisements sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) where the actor Noah Wyle tells us that Polar Bears are on the edge of extinction.

Funny that, when I go to the WWF site about Polar Bears, one finds the following curious statement:

With 20-25,000 polar bears living in the wild, the species is not currently endangered, but its future is far from certain.

Hmm, so on one hand WWF tells us they're on the verge of extinction, then tells us that they're not even endangered, yet. Of course they go on to say that "global warming" will most likely cause Polar Bears to go extinct within 100 years. They provide no evidence for this, just gratuitous assertions.

We know that Polar Bears have been around as a distinct species (though there are some who argue they are a sub-species of Brown Bear) for about 200,000 years. Which means they've lived through at least one other interglacial period. Our knowledge of previous interglacials shows that, according to Ice Core analysis, most were warmer than the current Holocene interglacial. So, if Polar Bears have survived previous warmer interglacial times, and warmer periods within the current interglacial, why is it that this less warm time is going to wipe them out?

WWF also seems to ignore the fact that Polar Bears live perfectly well on land as well as ice.

I won't go into the fact there there has been no established direct or even indirect link between human industrial CO2 emissions and melting of Arctic sea ice (or retreating glaciers, melting ice sheets, etc). But apparently for WWF and many other political organizations, it's a foregone conclusion. They don't need to wait for actual evidence, apparently.

Stay Slim To Save The Planet, UK Scientists Say

LONDON - Overweight people eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car, making excess body weight doubly bad for the environment, according to a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

"When it comes to food consumption, moving about in a heavy body is like driving around in a gas guzzler," and food production is a major source of greenhouse gases, researchers Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts wrote in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

"We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness, and recognise it as a key factor in the battle to reduce (carbon) emissions and slow climate change," the British scientists said.

They estimated that each fat person is responsible for about one tonne of carbon dioxide emissions a year more on average than each thin person, adding up to an extra one billion tonnes of CO2 a year in a population of one billion overweight people.

The European Union estimates each EU citizen accounts for 11 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year.

Apart from the obvious "governing your lifestyle" socialism, there is a glaring error with the assumptions made.

How many of you know of a skinny person who eats and eats and eats and never gains weight? If it's how much you consume that's an issue, and not, presumably how much you weigh, then ALL people should be taken into account, not their body weight. Of course, it's all a phantom menace anyway.

It's really hard to fathom how something like this is considered newsworthy, however.

March 28, 2009, 11:31 am
‘Tipping Points’ and the Climate Challenge [click the title for the entire article]
By Andrew C. Revkin

In early assessments of global warming, most curves were smooth. Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases would raise temperatures. Then glaciologists started finding evidence of extraordinarily abrupt jumps in regional temperatures. Other evidence revealed past eras when seas rose precipitously. The possible shutdown of important Atlantic Ocean currents added to the sense of nonlinear and disruptive risk. A certain best seller propelled the phrase “tipping point” deep into popular discourse. Add that all together and what do you get? The prospect that human-driven warming is poised to push Earth past dangerous tipping points is now a cornerstone of many environmental campaigns.

But what tipping points are well established and which ones remain what Stephen W. Pacala of Princeton University has called “the monsters behind the door”? I have a piece in the Week in Review section exploring these concerns. Given the limits on space in print, I thought it worthwhile to add some additional voices here and encourage further discussion. The bottom line? A growing effort to clarify such risks has yielded what amounts to the same message climate experts have been conveying for more than two decades: More emissions of greenhouse gases raise the odds of trouble. The conclusion is similar to that in the “burning embers” diagrams from the third Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and a recent paper.

More alarmism based on computer games. It has yet to be shown that "human-driven warming" is even happening, much less whether there are such things as "tipping points".

Global warming vs. unemployment
Congress is gearing up for another run at a cap-and-trade law and opponents say it will cost too many jobs. Are they right?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Get ready for fireworks. As congressional Democrats begin drafting another bill regulating greenhouse gases, opponents are already saying it would cost millions of jobs amid the worst recession in decades.

To be sure, estimates on how many jobs may be lost and when those loses would come vary widely depending on who's counting.

The most middle-of-the-road analysis seems to come from the government's Energy Information Administration. EIA said last year's failed Lieberman-Warner greenhouse gas bill would result in about 100,000 fewer jobs per year.

But the EIA's estimate is taking fire from all sides. Opponents of the bill say it is far too low, while supporters say it is far too high.

I'm still unclear how allowing the rich to continue "polluting" will combat "global warming" in any way. I'm also unclear how preventing poor countries from being able to use the most cost-effective energy available will combat "global warming".

Is there a quantitative study showing how ANY cap and trade system will affect global temperatures?

h/t to Junkscience.com

Knock, knock: it’s the council bin snoops

Householders face 're-education' visits for producing too much rubbish after microchipping of two million bins
Steven Swinford

HOUSEHOLDERS are facing “re-education” home visits for producing too much rubbish after figures released under freedom of information laws revealed that councils have quietly microchipped 2m bins.

The chips can be used to record the amount of rubbish families are throwing away. Those recycling too little will be sent warning leaflets, then visited by council officials who will advise on cutting waste.

From CNN.com, Team battles Arctic winter to measure melting ice caps

(CNN) -- It could be the ultimate test of human endurance: Three British explorers are risking their lives in subzero temperatures to measure the melting Arctic ice cap.
A member of the polar exploration team perches on skis inside the Arctic Circle.

The team is on a three-month, 621-mile (1,000-kilometer) hike to their final destination at the North Pole. Along the way, taking precise measurements to determine exactly how fast the ice cap is disappearing.