Subject: {Disarmed} EPA socialism, Google carbon nonsense and the weekly Chilling Effect cartoon
From: "editor@thechillingeffect.org"
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:37:44 -0600
To: bob@cosy.com

Please add editor@thechillingeffect.com to your address book to ensure our emails reach your inbox.

January 12, 2008

 

 
    * Princeton Professor: ““This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda … Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
    * The Climate Politics of Web Awards
    * Oil Prices: Are U.S. Crude Prices Out of Touch With Reality?
    * And the Modern Malthus Award Goes To … “Global warming could starve half the world by century-end”
    * Ahh, The British Press: “Climate change fears spiral as warmer seas ‘absorbing less carbon dioxide’”
    * Mickey Rourke Doesn’t Have The Time For Your Hippie Clock
    * Going green at CES … and at the Detroit Auto Show
    * Letter: Don’t blame CO2 for warming
 
 
Today’s above the fold Washington Times headline reads “Obama climate czar has socialist ties.” More here
 
    “Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
 
    “By Thursday, Mrs. Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available…”
 
Read earlier coverage here.
 
 
A story is carrying the news that performing two Google searches creates the same carbon footprint as boiling a kettle for tea. Without checking the scholar’s work, here’s a quick thought: QUIT COUNTING COSTS WITHOUT COUNTING BENEFITS. How aggravating.
 
The average reader would feel worse about their research on the Internet because it leaves an impact they are told is negative. But what about the amount of travel saved from having to go to a library, which produces volumes of texts by tearing down trees with heavy vehicles than burn fossil fuels. None of those activities is bad — but the totality of their carbon footprint is most certainly higher than a person studying a subject in articles produced on efficient computers and through electrons, rather than paper.
 
It may be well and good for groups to raise legitimate concerns about our activities’ environmental impact, but a cost-benefit ratio without counting benefits is just intellectually misleading.
 
 
William Yeatman has this over at GlobalWarming.org:
 
    “… a global warming policy has already led to instability in the developing world. Only a couple years ago, environmentalists promoted ethanol as a “green fuel.” They were wrong. It turns out that ethanol production leads to land use changes that release more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than is saved by ethanol use.
 
    “Worse, ethanol is made from food—corn and soy in the U.S., palm oil and wheat in the European Union. In 2008, ethanol production policies in the developed world contributed to steep inflation in the price of food, which caused urban unrest in developing countries dependent on the international grain market.”

 


Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open 


Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open
Web Bug from http://www.activecampaigns.net/connect/lt/t_go.php?i=446&e=NzU1NDA0&l=open
--- MailScanner ---
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.