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

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On April 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am, WarTip said:

   I thought Al Gore used an SUV to cross the street? Am I remembering that correctly? Was it a limo? Seems to me it was at one of the celebrations of his mockumentary about troof or something inconvenient like that? Boy! Talk about being inconvenienced?

   Maybe they should try planting more plants. I hear tell that there is some scientific theory that says plants thrive on CO2 and emit (Gasp) Oxygen for us to breathe in return.

2. #2
   On April 10th, 2008 at 11:55 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

   Maybe they’ll hold the medal ceremonies in the dark to offset the flame-induced carbon emissions.

   Thanks, I needed a laugh!

3. #3
   On April 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm, John Ansell said:

   Off Topic How can we force the press and the police to tell us when a person is illegal? I’m getting so F’ing tired of the press covering up the legality of people like this. Chances are, given his age, that he’s leagal, but is he an anchor baby?

   On Topic, SF found a flame they didn’t like?

4. #4
   On April 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm, greenfairie said:

   I know, let’s hold the Olympics in one of the most polluted countries in the world! That’ll show how eco-conscious we are!

5. #5
   On April 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm, josetheguerilla said:

   It’s time to get out the Goracle carbon credits!!!!!!!!!

6. #6
   On April 10th, 2008 at 12:14 pm, Henry said:

   Maybe The Goreacle™ will donate some carbon credits from his own company that he “buys” his own carbon credits from.

7. #7
   On April 10th, 2008 at 12:15 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

   Good thing cardon is good for the planet!

8. #8
   On April 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pm, zorro said:

   “Green” Olympics in China

   Yeah, like an ethical Congress run by Democraps.

9. #9
   On April 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

   zorro,

   That’ll leave a mark.

   Cue trolls.

10. #10
    On April 10th, 2008 at 12:31 pm, Seminole 6 said:

    ” Yeah, like an ethical Congress run by Democraps.” says zorro.

    I wish it was only the Dems. Unfortunately the right (at least Repubs.) are also on the GW bandwagon. When we were in the majority we could would not even pass ANWAR drilling, open the Gulf of Mexico, etc. I am afraid this train is out of control. It will be hell in a handbasket in another generation.

11. #11
    On April 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm, LarryD said:

    You do know that Carbon Trading was dreamed up by Enron?

    Such credits, of course, would only become bankable pieces of paper if governments, particularly the US Government, established and policed a global policy of decarbonisation under which a global tax on carbon was to be enforced.

    As the movement to establish the Kyoto Protocol developed momentum, it was necessary for Ken Lay to build up alliances with the green movement including Greenpeace. A 1998 letter, signed by Lay and a few other bigwigs asked President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue, because these individuals were standing in Enron’s way. The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to moderate the political aspects of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission. The purpose of this commission was clear – high-level trashing of dissident scientists. Setting up a panel to do this was simple; just look at the recent issue of Scientific American where four attack dogs were called out to chew up Bjorn Lomborg. He had the audacity to publish The Skeptic Environmentalist demonstrating that global warming is overblown. David Bellamy, the world’s foremost environmentalist also stepped out of line with his widely printed article “Global Warming? What a load of old Poppycock.” In the same way Galileo was forced to publicly utter that the moon had no effect on tides, so Bellamy under pressure backtracked on some of his claims.

    Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists that Enron was trying to shut up. After considering all of the inconsistencies in climate science, the report concluded: “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.” One of Enron’s major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony. Recently he published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicting exactly the same inconsequential amount of warming in the next 50 years as the scientists that Enron wanted to gag. They were a decade ahead of NASA. True to its plan, Enron never made its own findings public, self-censoring them while it pleaded with the Bush administration for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions that it could broker. That pleading continues today – the remnant-Enron still views global warming regulation as the straw that will raise it from its corporate oblivion. Some greenie campaigning in America is still directed from this source. On July 7, 2004, Kenneth Lay was indicted by a federal grand jury for his involvement in the scandal.

12. #12
    On April 10th, 2008 at 12:41 pm, ajmontana said:

    John Ansell said:
    On Topic, SF found a flame they didn’t like?

    hahahhahahha, lol!

13. #13
    On April 10th, 2008 at 12:43 pm, WarTip said:

    OT

    Actually, I will be going to teach University level English in China soon. In my studies at least, I have found many “green” zones and organic farming in the province I will be living in.

    I do not know that I will be able to let you know how true it is or not … at least from there, but I will certainly be posting it on my blog. (Not the one I am linked to here obviously and maybe I should change that)

    However, while the larger cities certainly do seem to have some issues, there do appear to be some “eco-friendly” areas still around. Again, this is just what I have seen from reading about it and the whole story remains to be seen but it should be an interesting year.

    PS My Anniversary is easy to remember … April One :”> But hey, this fool is still happy about it!

14. #14
    On April 10th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, rightisright said:

    John Ansell said: SF found a flame they didn’t like?

    Now that’s funny, tks John I needed that.

15. #15
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pm, madchef said:

    “With Earthlab estimating that every gallon of jet fuel burned produces 23.88 pounds of CO2, the Olympic Torch Relay is adding about 11 million pounds of carbon to the atmosphere. That’s 5,500 tons.”

    I don’t believe these figures, if a gallon of jet fuel weighs 8.5 lbs. as a liquid before it is burned, how can the CO2 portion of the fuel weigh 32.88 lbs after combustion. That seems like it would be physically impossible.

    But it has been 36 years since HS physics class so i may be wrong.

16. #16
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm, Yashmak said:

    ““With Earthlab estimating that every gallon of jet fuel burned produces 23.88 pounds of CO2″

    That number has to be high. A gallon of jet fuel (unburned) weighs approximately 7lb. For it to combust and yield that weight of CO2, the fuel would have to be almost completely carbon by weight, and 100% of that carbon would have to go into the formation of CO2 (but it doesn’t, some forms CO and other compounds as well). IIRC, by weight, jet fuel is about 15% Hydrogen.

17. #17
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pm, madchef said:

    Opps, I meant 23.88 lbs. Sorry

18. #18
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:03 pm, mkarnes2007 said:

    They should have the cyber Olympics, and use the old Nintendo “Track and Field” game and all those athletes can play from home and phone in their results

19. #19
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pm, jungatheart said:

    I may not be the brightest global warming bulb in the box but it’s hard for me to believe that a gallon of jet fuel weighing about 7 pounds can produce 23.88 pounds of CO2. Or am I mistaken and the laws of Physics don’t apply to Greenies?

20. #20
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm, DaveC said:

    take all the BS that congress shovels arround, as well as anything from any ‘information’ ministry that the Chi-Coms put out ought to give off enough methane to power the torch indefinitely ..

21. #21
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pm, DaveC said:

    “With Earthlab estimating that every gallon of jet fuel burned produces 23.88 pounds of CO2, the Olympic Torch Relay is adding about 11 million pounds of carbon to the atmosphere. That’s 5,500 tons.”

    that using the eco weenie math..

    not real math..

22. #22
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:19 pm, RaisedRight said:

    I’m confused by the jet fuel emissions data as well. I believe it is not a straight 23.88 lbs, but rather 23.88 pounds per unit of measure. However, I was only a Chem major for one year before switching to English, so I could not tell you what that unit would be.

23. #23
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:27 pm, Boomer said:

    I thought China and India were exempt from the Kyoto Protocols? All the developing countries get a pass on gross pollution while the developed countries get to bend over and pay their emission taxes to the useless idiots at the UN.

    On April 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm, John Ansell said: On Topic, SF found a flame they didn’t like?

    Thanks for the great laugh John!

24. #24
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:28 pm, WarTip said:

    Okay, this is just too rich and I cannot resist …

    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pm, jungatheart said: am I mistaken and the laws of Physics don’t apply to Greenies?

    No they do not apparently. To be the brightest global warming bulb you have to be filled with environmental contaminants so that you can save on energy purchased from our enemies and polluting our atmosphere while we pay them in our currency. That energy you saved and the pollution created while making that energy can then be dedicated to powering your hybrid car (When you are not driving your SUV alone to attend events to show everyone how environmentally conscious and aware you are) You would also have to be a democrat or a green party member, believe that animals contribute more to the planet than people do and all sorts of other stuff that this is making my head hurt too much to understand … much less to write about in detail here.

    Wow, being Conservative is so much easier. My Grampa taught me a long time ago that all I had to do was tell the truth and then I did not have to try to remember what lie I told who. If you do not understand green (il)logic or their inability to pay attention to details or rationalize facts … you are not alone my friend … you are not alone.

    I am going to bed now. That one made my head hurt

25. #25
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:31 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    I’m no scientist, but for all the talk about the environment, there is precious little actual science in the news. Agendas yes, politics yes, but science and math, hardly. I’d love to see real numbers, real discusssions. The last thing I saw on “Global Warming” was (ok, I should know better) on Larry King, where a former swimsuit contestant and present weather girl kept saying “It’s real Larry, it’s real” while Bill Nye “The Science Guy” kept shouting down an MIT Professor. The Prof was the only guy I was interested in, but he was polite, and couldn’t get a word in…

26. #26
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm, Barry F. said:

    On April 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm, John Ansell said:

    On Topic, SF found a flame they didn’t like?

    ROFLMAO

27. #27
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm, lgm said:

    Being green doesn’t mean sitting at home doing nothing. It means finding ways to do the things you want to do without causing global warming. It’s a technology challenge the U S of A is fully up to.

28. #28
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:40 pm, totochi said:

    On the CathayPacific FLYgreener website, they use a figure of 3.15kg of CO2 per kg of jetfuel. I think people are forgetting that it takes oxygen to combust fuel. I’m no chemist but if jetfuel is mostly carbon by weight (12:1 vs hydrogen), then CO2 >3x the weight of just the carbon atom (weight of oxygen vs carbon is 16:12). The extra weight is O2 being sucked into the jet engine intake.

29. #29
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:42 pm, granite said:

    Aviation fuels are primarily hydrocarbons – hydrigen and carbon; and pretty much only hydrogen and carbon.

    Atomic weights:

    Hydrogen: 1
    Carbon: 12
    Oxygen: 16

    In burning, the hydrocabon reacts with oxygen (oxidation).

    Two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom to form water (thus, H2O);
    molecular weight: 18

    Each carbon atom combines with two oxygen atoms (in a complete burn) to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
    (If the burn is incomplete, the product is carbon monoxide – CO)

    Molecular weight of carbon dioxide: 44

    The ratio of hydrogen to carbon will vary a bit in various hydrocarbons, but it will generally be around 2 hydrogens for each carbon, meaning that carbon will make up 12/14, or 6/7, or approximately 86% of the weight of the hydrocarbon.

    OK.

    In a complete burn, one molecule of CO2 (molecular weight 44) is generated from each carbon atom (atomic weight 12).
    The weight increase is 44/12, or 3.7x.

    So, if a gallon of unburned jet fuel weighs about 7lb, 7lb x 3.7 (an unlikely 100% complete burn, but work with me!) would yield 25.9lb of CO2.

    So, the 23.88lb of CO2 per 7lb gallon of jet fuel sounds very reasonable.

    (College chemistry major, prior to attending med school.)

30. #30
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm, Barry F. said:

    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm, lgm said:

    Being green doesn’t mean sitting at home doing nothing. It means finding ways to do the things you want to do without causing global warming. It’s a technology challenge the U S of A is fully up to.

    How do we balance that with the “global cooling”?

31. #31
    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm, granite said:

    Arrgghh!!!
    No working preview!
    …hydrOgen, not hydrIgen!!

32. #32
    On April 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm, diggafromdover said:

    global or local, warm or cold, bs is bs – and we know from where it comes…

33. #33
    On April 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, walterc said:

    Barry F. said:

    On April 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm, lgm said:

    How do we balance that with the “global cooling”?

    It means the Goracle’s efforts are paying off faster than anyone expected./sarc

34. #34
    On April 10th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, nbarry said:

    We’re talking here about a host country that has a coal mine disaster every week.

35. #35
    On April 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm, docflash said:

    The next thing will be outlawing Woks.

36. #36
    On April 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm, madchef said:

    Thanks for cyphering that for us Granite, I looked on-line at the petro industry web sites and the listed the same emissions #’s but they didn’t explain the formula showing how they arrived at that number. It just sounded odd but it makes sense when you explain it.

37. #37
    On April 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm, granite said:

    madchef:

    You bet.

    Just an approximation, ‘course.

    Also, gotta remember, the gallon of aviation fuel has .86 x 7lb = 6lb (and a bit of change) of carbon.

    But, again, a plenty good enough approximation.

38. #38
    On April 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pm, granite said:

    BTW, totochi in #28 also laid it out for us.

39. #39
    On April 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pm, TexasTiger said:

    Global warming, global cooling. How 2007.
    
    Visionary environmentalists must address the next emergent threat–global temperature flatlining.

    To the barricades! Who’s with me?

40. #40
    On April 10th, 2008 at 3:08 pm, Yashmak said:

    granite,
    I bow to your superior chemistry knowledge.

41. #41
    On April 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pm, HeatherRadish said:

    Being green doesn’t mean sitting at home doing nothing. It means finding ways to do the things you want to do without causing global warming.

    Anthropogenic global warming DOESN’T EXIST, therefore nothing I do can cause it. So it seems I’m plenty green already!

42. #42
    On April 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm, lgm said:

    HeatherRadish said (#41):

    Anthropogenic global warming DOESN’T EXIST, therefore nothing I do can cause it. So it seems I’m plenty green already!

    Sometimes you have to act when there is not airtight proof (pun intended), only lots of evidence. That’s the case you make to got to war over sketchy evidence of WMDs.

43. #43
    On April 10th, 2008 at 4:28 pm, jungatheart said:

    Thanks Granite. I hate feeling stupid but it’s better than being wrong.

44. #44
    On April 10th, 2008 at 4:33 pm, DaveC said:

    On April 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm, lgm said:

    Sometimes you have to act when there is not airtight proof (pun intended), only lots of evidence.

    When you put it that way, it sounds almost like a cult religion..

45. #45
    On April 10th, 2008 at 4:55 pm, graysonret said:

    When Al Gore and his worshippers get the U.N. to ban all volcanoes and make it stick, along with methane bubbling in the oceans, then I’ll pay attention to human carbon emissions. Until then, I’ll use my car, electricity and my charcoal bbq to my heart’s content.

46. #46
    On April 10th, 2008 at 5:01 pm, conservativesRus said:

    I’m puzzled by lgm’s post. Can he please show me a cause and effect relationship between any human activity and global temperature? Note: I did not say, show me a computer model. As one with advanced engineering degrees, I will tell you computer models are ONLY as good as the ASSUMPTIONS upon which they are based. To my knowledge of the subject, ?all? of the models upon which GW are based, ASSUME GW occurs. So duh – guess what result the models produce.

47. #47
    On April 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm, SHoward said:

    Seems to me like one great way to significantly reduce carbon output is to go nuclear for electrical power.

    Comrade Fonda educated us in “The China Syndrome” so that we never destroy the earth inadvertantly.

48. #48
    On April 10th, 2008 at 5:37 pm, lgm said:

    conservativesRus said (#46):

    Can he please show me a cause and effect relationship between any human activity and global temperature?

    The most prestigious and broadest base scientific organization in the US believes that humans are causing severe global warming. Yes, they use computer models. Scientists, the best in the US, have a better idea when to trust computer models and when not to.

    By the way, CAT scans and MRI use computer modeling. Neither would work without computers.

49. #49
    On April 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm, Yashmak said:

    Trying to compare CAT scans and MRI to prediction and analysis of global weather patterns?

    You astound me lgm.

    NASA is considered one of the leading scientific organizations in the US too, and they’ve admitted to numerous errors in recorded temperatures that these studies by the NRC were based on. Hell, NASA has lost probes to Mars because they didn’t make a conversion from metric to English measurements properly. The smartest of us make mistakes. . .and as the saying goes, “none of us is as dumb as all of us”.

    Again, if the assumptions in the computer model are wrong, the output will be wrong. It doesn’t matter HOW many scientists you have working it, or how advanced the computer model.

50. #50
    On April 10th, 2008 at 11:55 pm, DaveC said:

    #25

    where a former swimsuit contestant and present weather girl kept saying “It’s real Larry, it’s real” while Bill Nye “The Science Guy” kept shouting down an MIT Professor

    how the left debates is like how a moron (lgm) talks to someone in another language..

    you speak louder and longer at the person..

51. #51
    On April 11th, 2008 at 12:07 am, DaveC said:

    Little Gray Matter.. #48

    The most prestigious and broadest base scientific organization in the US believes that humans are causing severe global warming. Yes, they use computer models. Scientists, the best in the US, have a better idea when to trust computer models and when not to.

    Are those the same computer models that when data from the 1960s and 1970s entered into it, it still showed the same prediction of severe global warming in the 1980s and 1990s? And is the computer code available to be checked out by anyone else?..

    You should check out a few things that Julian L. Simon.. he was called the ‘Doomslayer’.. ‘Wired’ magazine (hardly a right of center publication) had a nice write up about him..

    you might learn a thing or two.. but I’m not holding my breath..

    as far as CO2 being at high levels.. expect high plant growth to set in soon to take care of that.. it how mother earth takes care of herself.. been doing that for QUITE some time, from what I’ve been told..

52. #52
    On April 11th, 2008 at 5:00 am, graysonret said:

    As long as there is power to gain and money to make, global warming will be with us, regardless of the facts. Many people think warming is something new. It isn’t. 1000 a.d. we had massive global warming. I noticed the polar bears survived just fine. In fact, that warming period was a boon to civilization. And no, Greenland isn’t called that, to attract viking “tourists” as some people have claimed. We then entered a global cooling period (a mini-ice age) that caused a lot of suffering. Climate changes all the time. We don’t need greedy, power-seeking people harping doom and gloom, to push their socialist ideas on us. El Nino and El Nina are examples too. It’s all the same. “We all going to die, send money”.

53. #53
    On April 11th, 2008 at 9:28 am, conservativesRus said:

    LGM – your “equating” the modeling of a CAT or MRI with that of temperature prediction shows a total lack of understanding of the subject matter. I’ll try to be very simple here: In one, they take “measurements of a signal” (or changes in that measurement) and then “build a 3-d mathematical model”. About the only thing that type of modeling has in common with any weather modeling is both use computers. Weather forecast modeling (whether for hurricane path prediction, tomorrow’s weather or global temperature forecasting) is much more of a finite element analysis problem. And you’ll notice how astoundingly accurate they are with predictions of tomorrow’s weather or the path’s of hurricanes.
    That is not to say finite element analysis is inherently inaccurate. It isn’t. I have used it many many times as a tool in my career and accurately “predicted” behavior of something I was trying to design. It is though, ONLY as good as the assumptions upon which it is based.

54. #54
    On April 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    IF .. one were to apply the statistical correlation model approach employed by the IPCC that led them to their so called ‘consensus’ that human CO2 causes global warming, you could easily ‘prove’ that drinking water causes cancer. It is impossible to disprove such a theory because everyone who gets cancer has drank water. The fact that the majority of people who drink water do not get cancer does nothing to disprove that theory anymore than the fact that there has been no further global warming in the last ten years does anything to disprove the theory that human CO2 causes global warming. In either case, the submitter of the theory need only declare that there are additional complex and ‘poorly understood’ factors still being studied that apparently affect the theoretical relationship, (as the IPCC clearly indicates within their most recent report for example). Therefore, be certain everyone that you run the risk of getting cancer if you continue to drink water every bit as much as you run the risk of causing global warming if you continue to emit CO2. But also be certain that if you stop drinking water, (in any form), you will not get cancer because you’ll be dead from dehydration. And such is the destiny of our economy if we let our government continue making policy based upon an Al Gore and Maurice Strong fantasy cooked up to make them both very rich. The lunacy must stop.

55. #55
    On April 20th, 2008 at 6:09 am, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    You know, the hypocrisy of environmental scaremongers becomes more transparent every day.

    Indeed, and it makes my job harder. How are we environmental scientists and students supposed to reach out to people when they are all running around like ninnies?

    I wonder how CO2 Burning Man puts out.

    It’s a technology challenge the U S of A is fully up to.

    As long as we keep getting foreign scientists from Asia, Germany and the UK, you know, the ones who actually want to study in college and not replace the three Rs exclusively with tolerance and diversity.

    We all know most American students are too lazy to study that in detail anyhow.