I haven't taken the time to put together a round up of the Enviro-nitwit Supreme and all the other fun, so now seems like a good time.
I do want to note one thing though, and that is the I am retiring the phrase "eco-nazi" from the blog, except in rare occasions.
I decided that the term "Eco-Nanny" instead. It seems to fit the "we know what's best for you" mentality that so many of these idiots seem to favor.
With that in mind, let's see what's going on.
First up is the Mighty Alarmists Supreme, the Grand Goracle, the mighty Al Gore, the biggest nanny of them all.
Al has taken on a new target for his science-less propaganda: Bloggers.
Former Vice President Al Gore made a surprise appearance Saturday at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of nearly 2,000 left-leaning bloggers and political organizers. He urged the activists to mobilize for global climate protection by amplifying his call to generate all the nation's electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal in 10 years.
Gore, who joined Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during her session at the convention, praised the bloggers as being at the forefront of reclaiming American democracy.
"Thank you for the movement that you have created," Gore said. "I can't tell you how important I think it is that you continue what you are doing."
Of course the movement the nutroots have created is mindless extremism, but ok.
Gore said the seriousness of the climate problem is related to the economic and security crises of U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Recent Republican calls to battle rising oil prices with more drilling are "absurd" and a bit like curing a hangover with another drink, he said.
Of course his stupid remarks went a little further:
"The defenders of the status quo are the ones who have dug us into this hole," he said, commenting that Americans have been "so often fooled into finding a remedy for a problem" that has nothing to do with the problem at hand -- pointing to the invasion of Iraq when America was attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan as an example.
"The engines of distraction and the great concentrated power of communication that you've seen turned on this issue or that issue is already hard at work," he says.
He should know. He has been pushing pseudo science and alarmism for what, thirty years or so? And all along he keeps predicting dire consequences within 10-20 years. Fortunately the time line keeps getting pushed back with each hysterical prediction.
Of course, this line was very relevant:
"The economics of renewables are becoming very attractive," Gore said.
Finally, some truth from the great one, if only the media would report it:
As my fellow NewsBuster Amy Ridenour accurately reported, global warming obsessed media are predictably gushing over Nobel Laureate Al Gore's call for America to completely convert all of its electricity production to solar, wind, and other renewable sources by 2018 (photo courtesy AFP).
As they gush, fawn, and genuflect, will press members dare to point out that Gore is heavily invested in companies which manufacture that which he's recommending America convert to?
After all, as NewsBusters reported on April 11, Gore admitted his financial stake in such things to an audience in Monterey, California, back in March (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00):
There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I'll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).
Now, seven months later, he's proposing:
Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the Earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The quickest, cheapest, most efficient, and best way to start using all of this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power, and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.
Check. Invested in all that!
We could further increase the value and efficiency of a unified national grid by helping our struggling auto companies switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars and save those auto jobs and renew our auto companies.
Check. Invested in that, too!
Will media members EVER make this connection and report it? Or, is that too much like journalism?
Granted, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being passionate enough to invest in what you believe in, but at the same time, there is something called conflict of interest to be considered, and considering he already has a huge stake in the carbon credit scams, this adds to the suspicion that he is in this for the money.
Speaking of carbon credits, I wonder how much his own entourage costs him?
You're going to love this video from Americans for Prosperity, whose staff caught eco-hypocrisy on full display at Al Gore's big energy sermon in Washington, D.C. earlier today.
Ed Frank writes: "We're back from Al Gore's big global warming speech, and boy did we have a great time! We had a dedicated band of taxpayer advocates out in force, pointing out the high economic cost of global warming alarmism - starting with $8 a gallon gasoline. Of course, we saw plenty of hypocrisy -- especially the fact that Gore didn't ride his bike or take public transporation to the event. He didn't even take his Prius! Instead, he brought a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV! Even worse, the driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore's wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left!"
Meanwhile, as Michelle Malkin reports in the same story, the rock solid consensus on man made global warming is under attack from within:
Top news this morning..."The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming 'incontrovertible.'"
The APS later released a statement contradicting this, and apparently this is an internal fight, where one faction doubts the consensus and wants debate, while the rest want to hold tight to the consensus with no debate, a patently unscientific stance.
Regardless, the truth is slowly emerging about the reality of climate change science:
David Evans was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005. He is a former global warming alarmist; however, he is also a scientist who goes where the evidence leads him. In this important article in The Australian, he blows the whistle on the fraud that many of the world's governments are in the midst of perpetrating:
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
And there you have the reality of climate change. Do you dare to examine the real facts?
In other interesting Environmental news, Washington Senator Maria Cantwell reveals the real agenda for the democratic congress and gas prices:
A Democratic senator on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee inadvertently explained why her colleagues have no intention of ending the moratorium on offshore oil drilling or increasing the areas open for exploration and production - no matter how popular the idea might be with gas prices soaring.
In an interview with Bloomberg TV's "Money and Politics" last night, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., explained Democrats don't want to increase supplies of oil and gasoline because they want to wean Americans off of petroleum products.
Asked point-blank if Democrats in the Senate would consider how increasing the supply of oil would lower the prices that are pinching U.S. consumers, Cantwell replied: "Oh, we definitely want to move beyond petroleum. And so there will be a supply side offered by the Democrats and it will include everything from battery technology to making sure that we have good home domestic supply, and looking, as I said about moving faster on those kind of things like wind and solar that can help us with our high cost of natural gas."
And here you see why I like the term Eco-Nanny so much. The democrats and eco-nannies have decided that they are a better judge of what is best for us than we are.
Here are a few more examples:
The City Council voted Tuesday to ban plastic shopping bags from stores beginning July 1, 2010. Shoppers can either bring their own bags or pay 25 cents for a paper bag.
The full City Council is expected to vote on the proposals Monday that were passed Tuesday by a committee. If adopted, the new legislation will launch a 90-day campaign to educate residents and shoppers before the 20-cent per bag fee goes into effect on Jan. 1.
The ban on plastic foam food take-out containers and cups also will take effect that day, if approved. However, a ban on plastic meat trays will be delayed for a year, allowing stores time to figure out alternatives.
Despite the fact that plastic bags are not actually a huge environmental risk and are 100% recyclable, they are the bad thing du jour. We cannot be trusted to use our bags responsibly, so we will be banned from using them, or taxed if we do.
Nanny nanny nanny.
Have fun with that... owwww.
Anyway, enjoy the links, and see you next week for the next Eco-Nanny roundup.Posted by guitarplayr at July 24, 2008 02:06 AM | Email This