See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Mark’s Soap Box » Blog Archive » Earth Hour
2. Michelle Malkin » Lights out at MichelleMalkin.com
3. Earth Hour - a joke « the tech blog
4. Michelle Malkin » Bagless in Seattle: Green cultists to tax plastic and paper
5. Michelle Malkin » Bagless in Seattle: Green cultists to tax plastic and paper
6. Michelle Malkin » Celebrate Earth Day: Destroy capitalism
7. Study Claims Google Search Queries Adding to Global Warming

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #276398
   On March 31st, 2008 at 8:02 pm, rooster said:

   Just as the last snows of the coldest winter, probably in recorded history, Al Gore squeezes out of his hibernation hole. Absolutely sicening.

2. #276399
   On March 31st, 2008 at 8:04 pm, zorro said:

   These people belong to a cult

   Pagans worshiping trees and shadows.

3. #276403
   On March 31st, 2008 at 8:14 pm, corona said:

   Google really is a cult – their recruitment process is clear evidence of this.

4. #276406
   On March 31st, 2008 at 8:22 pm, Tennessee Dave said:

   A group of environmental activists has enlisted Google to help flood the congressional switchboard with one million phone calls on Earth Day

   I’d be looking for the off switch on the switchboard.

5. #276409
   On March 31st, 2008 at 8:27 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

   And are we all supposed to crank up the energy when global cooling hits us in the next few years? Start driving more Hummers, etc? We’ll need to do something to stop the cooling! Or we’ll all freeze to death!

6. #276410
   On March 31st, 2008 at 8:29 pm, rightisright said:

   I dropped google for awhile, tried yahell and a few others…gulp, had to go back only because they have the best search engines and it grinds me to have to use em. HELLLLP! Gads i hate lefties!!!!
   This Gorebal warming scam maybe the biggest scam ever perpetrated on humanity, and all led by a fool that flunked out of divinity and law school. not to mention one of the most dangerous cults, right after the nazi’s, communism and the moooslems, better throw in the inquisition just to be fair.

7. #276411
   On March 31st, 2008 at 8:30 pm, rightisright said:

   LMAO, BlameA..goot one

8. #276414
   On March 31st, 2008 at 8:35 pm, almeehan said:

   I wanted to blast google but could not find a means to contact them. Anyone know how to email them? Liberals love darkness because their deed are evil.

9. #276417
   On March 31st, 2008 at 8:38 pm, geminicontender said:

   These eco-freaks are very, very stupid people. “Ring a bell and I’ll salivate,” (Barenaked Ladies verse) which seems appropriate. How can so many be so misled? People really do need to feel worthy and that is sad just by itself.

10. #276418
    On March 31st, 2008 at 8:42 pm, beenthere said:

    No, it is not a cult.
    A religion is a cult that has acquired political power.
    Global Warming has acquired immense political power.
    Ergo, it is a religion.

    It may not be a religion we approve of — I can think of at least one other example in that category — but it is a religion nevertheless. In other words, if Rev. Wright can be deemed a religious teacher, why not these people?

11. #276422
    On March 31st, 2008 at 8:55 pm, bironetworks said:

    i hate that they do this stupid gimmicky crap to get press… and it gets press.

    it’s useless, has no impact, but is all over the news.

    this is why i only watch american idol and pornography.

12. #276423
    On March 31st, 2008 at 8:57 pm, DarkKnight said:

    I think that Google probably succeeded in raising awareness about the event, if that was their intent. I would be interested in how many hits the Earth Hour site received as a result of the webpage change.

    At any rate, let me just say that I was initially confused when I saw the black screen on Google. At first I think that something was wrong with my monitor. Then, I thought “perhaps I have highlighted the whole screen” and then tried to click on the window to see if that would help. But alas, it was then that I noticed the link and read what they were trying to do.

13. #276426
    On March 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm, brooklyn red said:

    Well you can fool some of the people all of the time, & you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fo 62376278234989 94303627

    crap! where did my 45290372375 ing internet connection 7957–37 go?

14. #276431
    On March 31st, 2008 at 9:20 pm, DannoJyd said:

    Because, you know, there isn’t enough Awareness Raising about it–what with radical environmentalism being crammed down your kids’ throats …

    Speak for yourself, dear lady. My child was/is being homeschooled.

    What that means is she is not being subject to pressure to do drugs, have sex before marriage, tattoes, piercings, and all of the other perversions readily found in America’s Pubic [correct spelling] schools. Instead, she is [really] learning the 3 R’s, Astronomy via using her new [costly] telescope, meeting a higher class of people her age through our church and local homeschooling chapter, and to my vast surprise she has become a sweet mannered, helpfull, well spoken teenager.

    Who would have thought it.

    As for the eco-ridiculous loons out there, I do hope they are happy with their supposed successes. It would be a real shame if it turns out that all of their efforts were a total waste of time … WAIT! P

15. #276434
    On March 31st, 2008 at 9:27 pm, behiker said:

    I found something very telling about Earth Hour; I never heard algore say a word about it. My guess is that he couldn’t care less about that when he is more interested in scamming people to buy his carbon credits. When people simply turn out the lights, he doesn’t make money.

    Please don’t paint me as an environmental wacko, but I was interested in Earth Hour because it did encourage people to turn off lights. However, I turn off lights to save money… I don’t subscribe to the “global warming is man-made” crowd. Sure, it’s a small percentage of price, but companies do pass on the expense of utilities on to us. And cities use our taxes to pay for lighting public areas.

16. #276435
    On March 31st, 2008 at 9:27 pm, sausage said:

    You guys have nailed it. The whole cult of environmentalism is going to drive America into the ground. We should be free to pump terrorist supporting gas in our Ford trucks. To fill our oceans full of plastic, to use mountain top removal to get to the coal.

    What do the scientists know anyway? They think the earth is billions of years old!

17. #276436
    On March 31st, 2008 at 9:31 pm, Right_Wired said:

    Why doesn’t Google do the world a favor and just shut down completely, forever?

18. #276442
    On March 31st, 2008 at 9:47 pm, dave_r said:

    I don’t think we really know what draws more power, white screens vs. black. Sure, lots of new monitors are LCD and draw more power to show black, but there’s no practical way to know how many CRT screens are still out there (a) drawing more power on white and (b) drawing three or four times as much juice to start with. For a CRT, making the screen black is the energy saver, and has anyone attempted to measure to what extent?

    Also not in the equation: energy savings modes, on both camps.

19. #276446
    On March 31st, 2008 at 9:56 pm, dankitti said:

    I actually did that. I actually have a huge screen TV and three computers in my living room, so with all that I can turn out my one incandescent bulb and get along okay with the lights from those screens. And the lights from the street lamps. And the neighbors on the left and the neighbors on the right.

    I mean, it was just lights, right?

20. #276447
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:01 pm, Jeddite said:

    The lights are off in my home for about 15 hours per day, 5 days per week (~9 for while I’m out working, ~6 for when I’m sleeping). Who could have forseen that the difference between Ferngully and Mad Max was 60 minutes of additional daily lights-out.

21. #276448
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:01 pm, corkie said:

    sausage,

    Don’t dare to confuse AGW hysteria with normal efforts to become good stewards of the environment.

    Now, please explain the mechanism by which CO2 will over-heat the earth. I asked LGM this question three months ago, and….

    I certainly enjoy contributing to practical efforts to help the environment (as I believe most conservatives do). You know – effective efforts.

    Even if AGW is true, most CO2 reduction recommendations I’ve reviewed (including everything on Gore’s website) are completely immaterial and, therefore, ineffective. The amount of CO2 which would be reduced by such practices equates to a rounding error of total emissions.

22. #276449
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:14 pm, docflash said:

    “Climate change is the biggest threat to humanity that we’ve ever faced.”

    How about the plague,polio,mosquitos,Jihad with nukes oh and lefties with causes and ideas.

23. #276453
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:21 pm, dankitti said:

    The lights are off in my home for about 15 hours per day, 5 days per week (~9 for while I’m out working, ~6 for when I’m sleeping).

    Does sleeping count? I turn out all the lights every night when I sleep, but it is not that special Earth Hour, so I dunno if that counts.

24. #276454
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:27 pm, backwoods conservative said:

    I was in favor of turning off the lights, but not because I buy into the global warming craze; I don’t.

    I favor turning off the lights because of light pollution. Modern society has gone way overboard on lighting up the night, to the extent that there are millions of people who do not know what the night sky is supposed to look like. The night sky as seen from locations well away from city lights is incredibly beautiful. But unfortunately, I have to drive for two hours to reach such a location.

    I might add that most of the widely used outdoor lighting fixtures are unshielded and shine their glare right into a person’s eyes, which helps seeing about as much as loud noises help hearing.

25. #276456
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:30 pm, DaveC said:

    I wonder how much energy a million phone calls take?

    Anyhoo..

    I celebrated ‘Earth Hour’ by turning off ‘60 Minutes’ when Al Gore was on it..

26. #276457
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:32 pm, shimauma2 said:

    This Earth hour crap started in Sydney Austrailia right after those dufuses had their coldest freaking summer in 50 years.

    I think they were trying to get the groundhog’s attention or something, but I think he’s on a trip somewhere or napping. Maybe they need to yell louder or cut themselves (Kings 18: 25-29) because we just had 8 inches of snowfall in 12 hours here in Minnesota today.

    TEEEEEEEJ

27. #276458
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:35 pm, DaveC said:

    On March 31st, 2008 at 9:47 pm, dave_r said:

    I don’t think we really know what draws more power, white screens vs. black. Sure, lots of new monitors are LCD and draw more power to show black, but there’s no practical way to know how many CRT screens are still out there (a) drawing more power on white and (b) drawing three or four times as much juice to start with. For a CRT, making the screen black is the energy saver, and has anyone attempted to measure to what extent?

    I am fairly sure that with CRTs, if it black, it’s less energy.. the electron gun shuts off that part of the screen.. so you get a good black..

    the opposite is true with DLPs, and I would imagine Plasmas and other flat screens..

28. #276460
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:38 pm, DaveC said:

    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:01 pm, corkie said:

    sausage,

    Don’t dare to confuse AGW hysteria with normal efforts to become good stewards of the environment.

    Sausage is a drive buy commenter…

    dropping off a nugget of a turd leaving again..

29. #276464
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:43 pm, Mike said:

    #6 rightisright switch to scroogle.Here’s the link I hope
    http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
    Also switch your browser to Firefox latest version.You can then look that up using scroogle.Check out HotAir.There is an article in there on GW which we all know is baloney.

30. #276468
    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm, greenLibertarian said:

    I agree that the blackout was silly and counter-productive overall.

    However, we do need to act to move towards sustainable living. We cannot increase our population, and poison and otherwise destroy and alter the environment, and not expect serious consequences. Already food and water are scarce and expensive in some parts of the world, and this is engendering conflicts. More weapons and fewer resources = pending disasters.

    Don’t we want our children to have clean air, water, and enough resources to live well?

31. #276477
    On March 31st, 2008 at 11:12 pm, jenmom said:

    I am all for turning out lights – I run around my house turning the lights off after my kids and hubby leave a room. We don’t need lights on in a room we are no longer in and I like to think perhaps I can conserve energy in this manner and maybe lower my electric bill a tiny bit. But no – there was not turning off all the lights for this silly publicity stunt by the global warming doomsdayers.

    The media is so biased to this junk and it is so annoying. I didn’t realize that was why Google went black. Just another entity buying into the global warming farce.

32. #276480
    On March 31st, 2008 at 11:23 pm, DaveC said:

    greenLibertarian

    Already food and water are scarce and expensive in some parts of the world, and this is engendering conflicts. More weapons and fewer resources = pending disasters.

    I disagree.. in some places like Africa, it could be argued that it has the highest amount of natural resources than anywhere else in the world.. but just about every country there has a thug-dictator for life that oppresses the people there.. What’s the point in trying to build up your life and livelihood when a jack booted good will come by and take what you have…

    or the Middle East.. the Fertile Crescent.. in Israel, there are crops and orchids that produce year round..
    but nothing in the surrounding area..

    What’s the difference between Israel and their neighbors? Freedom for one and oppression for the other..

    The Midwest of the USA is considered to be the bread basket of the world.. (at least it use too.. before subsidies of corn going to ‘eco fuel’..)

    the main point is that if man is free, there is no limit as to what he can do..

    when he’s oppressed, they become serfs..

    if the free market would be allowed in all of these eco-rich countries, there is no telling how many people can eat..

    man is his own best resource..

    sorry for the long rant.

33. #276486
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:14 am, greenLibertarian said:

    The environment does not have unlimited capacity to support us and endure our abuse, you are living in a fantasy land, DC. Platitudes don’t replace fact, we have already rendered large portions of the environment less or not capable of sustaining life.

    The environment was at its best before mankind industrialized.

    The free market operates on profits, not long-term stewardship of the environment, our life-support system. No rational argument or empirical evidence will reach you and others like you, you have a religious, not scientific, faith that our current way of life can be continued forever. Either you or your descendants will suffer the consequences and learn that you are wrong – in this century, I suspect.

34. #276487
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:15 am, scooter56 said:

    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:01 pm, corkie said:

    Now, please explain the mechanism by which CO2 will over-heat the earth. I asked LGM this question three months ago, and….

    This is the start of it: “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon Temperature of the Ground” by Svante Arthenius
    Of course if you need more, I can pull up thousands of peer reviewed research from my field alone.
    The rest of the world is engaged in efforts to counter climate change while many Americans continue reading the same dreck endlessly spewed out by James (never met an energy lobbyist I wouldn’t take money from)Inofe.

35. #276490
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:27 am, Seabecker said:

    Do you notice that Google often “celebrates” events and holidays with art, special designs and now darkness?

    Did you notice that last week, on EASTER, nary a bunny, egg, lily or cross was to be found anywhere in Googledom? NOTHING!

    Google speaks loudly with their little dark screens. They speak even louder when they do nothing at all.

36. #276491
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:37 am, DaveC said:

    Platitudes don’t replace fact, we have already rendered large portions of the environment less or not capable of sustaining life.

    speaking of platitudes…

    No rational argument or empirical evidence will reach you and others like you, you have a religious, not scientific, faith that our current way of life can be continued forever.

    and you paint me off with quite a broad, but still narrow, brush..

    and I thought a rational argument WAS going to happen..

37. #276492
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:47 am, DaveC said:

    The environment was at its best before mankind industrialized.

    you mean.. CO2?

    The free market operates on profits, not long-term stewardship of the environment, our life-support system.

    I think they go hand in hand, where as the father wants his son to have a better life than he did.. and in a better world…

    it’s a rather asinine viewpoint that you think someone else DOESN’T want a clean air/water for their offspring..

38. #276493
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:49 am, TU Owls said:

    “I think the world will breathe a sigh of relief when this president is gone,” Clinton said, criticizing Bush for pulling out of various accordings, including the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

    (The above is a quote from an AP article by Erin Gartner about Chelsea Clinton and her tour of North Carolina.)

    I need some help. Wasn’t the Kyoto Protocol Treaty rejected by the US Senate 99-0? If so, then how could President Bush have pulled out of a treaty that never was ratified? Maybe some of the greater minds here could educate me.

    It seems that the apple doesn’t fall from the tree when it comes to the Clinton household when it comes to “misspeaking” (i.e. LYING). I think Ms. Clinton needs to be briefed better on her talking lying points.

    For Rusty, lgm, mookie and other assorted lefties that troll around here; don’t say Chelsea is “off-limits”, she isn’t. She chose to interject herself in her mother’s campaign and when she lies she deserves to be called out. She is not some naive kid but a college educated woman who knows the difference between right and wrong

39. #276495
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:51 am, BlameAmericaLast said:

    Oh no! Michelle — this is WAY too hard on my eyes. All this black! Yuck! Please take it away!

40. #276499
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:54 am, DaveC said:

    college educated woman who should know knows the difference between right and wrong

    fix that for you

    she was raised a Clinton, after all..

41. #276502
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:56 am, DaveC said:

    Night, greenLibertarian .. hope to talk to you in the morning hours..

42. #276505
    On April 1st, 2008 at 1:03 am, TU Owls said:

    Thanks DaveC, my bad.

43. #276525
    On April 1st, 2008 at 1:50 am, Archon said:

    Well that answers my question about that.

    Just remember kids, Earth first! We’ll destroy the other planets later.

44. #276539
    On April 1st, 2008 at 2:58 am, pgtips said:

    Already food and water are scarce and expensive in some parts of the world, and this is engendering conflicts. More weapons and fewer resources = pending disasters.

    And why do you think that is? Why is food scarce in the poorer developing countries but not scarce in a developed nation like America? Here’s a hint, compare the agriculture processes of America and … let’s say Uganda. How about comparing the political stability of said nations?

    Nevermind right? It’s all to do with the “environment”.

45. #276541
    On April 1st, 2008 at 3:02 am, pgtips said:

    The environment was at its best before mankind industrialized.

    And disease, starvation and poverty were a lot more rampant. You want to see what mankind was like pre-industrialization? You have a look at poor developing nations. If being pre-industrialized is such a good thing, you should swap your citizenship with someone who lives in these countries. Trust me, they will not hesitate to leave for a better life.

    There’s a reason all poor countries are trying their best to become industrialized. It’s not to make you eco loons happy, thats for sure. Where oh where will you buy your carbon credits from when they’ve become industrialized, eh?

46. #276559
    On April 1st, 2008 at 5:41 am, jamesgreenidge said:

    or the Middle East.. the Fertile Crescent.. in Israel, there are crops and orchids that produce year round..
    but nothing in the surrounding area..
    What’s the difference between Israel and their neighbors? Freedom for one and oppression for the other..

    A point so overlooked it’s a crime! While Palestinians have been mired in a quagmire of hate, Israelis focused into making their half of a desert bloom. My sympathy for the Palestinians has waned as they’d rather hone swords than till soil and minds. A raw deal is what you make of it, like how the Taiwanese “exiled out a tiny island” turned a lemon into lemonade.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

47. #276565
    On April 1st, 2008 at 6:09 am, graysonret said:

    Apparently, these people would like us to be more like North Korea…little industry, poor in spirit, little hope, with all-knowing rich communists (them) in control. We’d all go back to the horse and buggy, but PETA would be all upset. Besides, who’s going to clean up the streets?

48. #276615
    On April 1st, 2008 at 8:23 am, misterbee241 said:

    I agree that GW is a religion. It has its holy book – Earth In the Balance, it has its prophet, Al Gore, it has it’s prophecy, An Inconvenient Truth, and it has its followers, and it requires enormous faith. Its god or goddess, as the case may be is the earth – Gaia.
    Now if one of the faithful GW’ists break off and form another branch of this religion, teaches heresy, etc, then THAT would be a cult.
    GW is most definitely a religion.

49. #276661
    On April 1st, 2008 at 9:44 am, corkie said:

    I asked if sausage could explain. He didn’t answer and scooter56 merely linked to a paper.

    scooter56, please explain the mechanism to me so that we can discuss.

50. #276670
    On April 1st, 2008 at 9:52 am, Hannibal said:

    #38 TU Owls has said the magic words, “Kyoto Treaty”. The United States is sooo bad for not jumping on this bandwagon. Has anyone noticed that not one nation that signed Kyoto has met the first benchmarks? No country even came close. Billions of dollars in fines are now due since the signature nations have all failed on the easiest goals of the protocol. Has anyone heard that these huge fines have been paid? Maybe Gore will bring a class action at the Haig to collect the fines or sell them some carbon credits so they can come into compliance.

51. #276693
    On April 1st, 2008 at 10:14 am, DaveC said:

    The funny thing about the Kyoto Treaty,

    it leaves China out completely..

52. #276703
    On April 1st, 2008 at 10:22 am, scooter56 said:

    On April 1st, 2008 at 9:44 am, corkie said:

    I asked if sausage could explain. He didn’t answer and scooter56 merely linked to a paper.

    scooter56, please explain the mechanism to me so that we can discuss.

    Corkie, this is the current simplified model from Myhre: ΔF = α ln(C/C0)

53. #276796
    On April 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am, DBNinKY said:

    Since the environmentalist’s new message is now on global warming, am I safe in assuming that we have summarily saved the rain forest from utter annihilation?

54. #276799
    On April 1st, 2008 at 11:26 am, corkie said:

    this is the current simplified model from Myhre: ΔF = α ln(C/C0)

    scooter56,

    Are you serious? I’ll assume that you can’t offer an explanation. One, condensed formula for modeling theoretical effect DOES NOT explain a mechanism of action.

    My search continues.

55. #276880
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm, Mister P said:

    For Rusty, lgm, mookie and other assorted lefties that troll around here; don’t say Chelsea is “off-limits”, she isn’t. She chose to interject herself in her mother’s campaign and when she lies she deserves to be called out. She is not some naive kid but a college educated woman who knows the difference between right and wrong

    Why not ask Chelsea why public schools were not good enough for her.

56. #276890
    On April 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm, GaijinBob said:

    DaveC said:
    

    The environment was at its best before mankind industrialized.

    you mean.. CO2?

    I think he means during the ice age.

    BTW, can I still take my plastic bottles to the recycler? I get 5¢ a pop!

57. #277187
    On April 1st, 2008 at 5:35 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm, greenLibertarian said:
    Don’t we want our children to have clean air, water, and enough resources to live well?

    Per unit of production America is one of the cleanest nations on Earth. Top three a least. We lead the world in developing clean coal technology.

    Since 1970 [through 1997], aggregate emissions of the six principal pollutants have been cut 48 percent. During that same time, U.S. gross domestic product increased 164 percent, energy consumption increased 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased 155 percent.

    In 1980 the US put 267 tons of pollution in the air.
    In 2006 the US put 137 tons of pollution in the air.

    From 1980 to 2006:
    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentrations dropped 75%.
    Ozone concentrations dropped 21%
    Lead concentrations dropped 96%
    (Nitrogen Dioxide) NO2 concentrations dropped 41%
    Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) concentrations dropped 66%
    From 1990 to 2006:
    Particulate Matter concentrations dropped 30%

    Those are in real numbers, not per capita or unit of production.

    I’ve been hearing the “just-about-out-of-food/water/resources” argument since the 70’s. Somehow it never comes true.

    Innovation increases supply.
    Innovation thrives under liberty.
    Free nations do not have cronic supply problems. Even the oil-”crisis” will work itself out. Either with fuel alternatives or more drilling or more likely, both.
    Dictatorships tend to have cronic supply problems.

    The solution to a supply problem AND a pollution problem is private property ownership, capitalism, and free-markets.

58. #277425
    On April 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 am, scooter56 said:

    On April 1st, 2008 at 5:35 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On March 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm, greenLibertarian said:
    Don’t we want our children to have clean air, water, and enough resources to live well?

    Per unit of production America is one of the cleanest nations on Earth. Top three a least. We lead the world in developing clean coal technology.

    I would question many of your figures and conclusions but I will let others do it for me.
    DOE/EPA figures can be found at:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/#developments
    Also, most reductions you listed didn’t happen because of voluntary actions by kind hearted industries…..and CO2 levels have gone up (greatly), whereas CO has gone down……and clean coal, yeah right.

59. #277684
    On April 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am, DaveC said:

    I would question many of your figures and conclusions but I will let others do it for me.

    But will you drink the ‘kool-aid’ if Al Gore offers it to you, Scooter?

60. #277974
    On April 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On April 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 am, scooter56 said:
    I would question many of your figures and conclusions but I will let others do it for me.

    Gee. Typical liberal response. My site is ACTUAL facts and data, no spin. Your site (Energy Information Administration) is dedicated to reporting solely on global warming issues and uses “Greenhouse gas” EQUIVALENT” emmissions.

    What does “equivalent” mean in this case? This.

    Emissions of other greenhouse gases (such as methane) can also be measured in carbon dioxide equivalent units by multiplying their emissions (in metric tons) by their global warming potentials (GWPs).

    “global warming potentials” = a number we’re guessing at.

    Too bad for you I cited EPA data and you linked to a Global Warming directed political spin site. Which is generally more reliable? Someone reporting facts and figures or someone with an agenda?

61. #509757
    On October 21st, 2008 at 11:51 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    It’s been getting cooler since 1998 while CO2 has continued UP another 5%; so much for the IPCC idea that a computer model correlation equals proof. (Of course by their methods everyone should get cancer because everyone drinks water – based on the FACT that everyone who gets cancer…drank water!). Their projections indicated it should have gotten at least another .3 C WARMER since 1998 … IT DID NOT…. THEY WERE WRONG. So why are people still talking about what they said as being correct? Shouldn’t EVERYBODY be delighted to know that the whole idea that human CO2 causes global warming is now disproven? Maybe nobody told them? – SPREAD THE WORD!

62. #509767
    On October 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Fact – There was only one other brief period in earth’s geologic history 280 million years ago when BOTH CO2 and temperature were low at the same time as they are right now. Our current climate and CO2 level are NOT typical for this planet; the average temperature is MUCH higher and the average CO2 level is MUCH higher. The people who actually believe that climate temperature and CO2 concentration should not get any higher than they are now – are just ignorant idiots.