posted February 28, 2007 11:11 PM            

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton – with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter – luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants – those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture – using massive amounts of fossil fuel – only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us – not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess – are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukrainians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas – 299 million of you are going to have to go.

Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

"Global warming" is the liberals' stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

posted March 01, 2007 05:21 AM              

Horrors!

Jwhop, why must you resort to posting articles by this fool? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a shot at hypocritical Hollywood as much as the next girl but this lady (ahem) sacrifices logic and truth in the name of a media friendly phrase at every turn.

posted March 05, 2007 06:06 PM            

In fact, she's right but you're focusing on the wealth side of the issue. The production side of the issue is food, clothes, shelter and essentials to maintain life...not necessarily a lifestyle.

Shut down production, distribution and transportation and millions would die..possibly billions. Probably not here or few here but how about the poor regions of the earth. Where do you think they get their food? Most don't produce enough to feed their populations.

I think the main problem some have with Coulter is that she skewers leftist hypocrisy with her very sharp tongue.

posted March 05, 2007 06:16 PM            

quote:

---

I think the main problem some have with Coulter is that she skewers leftist hypocrisy with her very sharp tongue.

---

Well, I'll tell you that my personal problem with her is that she believes herself intelligent.

posted March 05, 2007 06:30 PM            

If every acre of land in the US which is devoted to producing corn for food was converted to ethanol use, it would only represent about 11% of US fuel/energy needs.

The price of corn in Mexico and some parts of Central and South American has already tripled. People are rioting because they can't afford an important part of their staple diet.

So acoustic, people would adjust to less food and/or starvation?

I'm not going to tell you what you sound like acoustic but it begins with an "I".

posted March 05, 2007 07:19 PM            

Do you know how those batteries stay charged and the amount of electric power it takes to keep them charged? Or how that electricity is produced?

Or, perhaps you're talking about nuclear power plants...which the radical leftists have opposed for more than 30 years.

People don't adapt to starvation acoustic, they just die...or riot while they still have the strength to do so.

You and your phony baloney leftist kooks will cause mass starvation in parts of the world if you were to get your way.

posted March 06, 2007 11:15 PM            

Your arguments are all style over substance acoustic. If you really knew anything, you'd know "why" it's true.

I asked a simple specific question and got an unfocused general answer. The usual from you.

Let's try again, "what" energy source(s) is/are going to replace fossil fuels. Jump in acoustic. Take the plunge and commit yourself.

TINK, you're going to have to make the connection for me. I see no connection between the so called military industrial complex having us all by the shorts and energy production.

posted March 06, 2007 11:42 PM              

simply for the sake of our quality of life, i believe we can find alternative forms of sustaining ourselves -- and comfortably so, without 'killing off' huge portions of the population. we have such advanced technology and knowledge...now is the time to put them to use, and there are those who are doing so, to find more eco-friendly ways of life. smashing our way back to the dark ages, and low population of the planet isn't necessary. we really do have the capacity to shift our way of thinking and gradually adapt to a more planet friendly mode of living.

here is an example (from a previous post) ~

Sweden aims for oil-free economy

Sweden has a head start on many countries in its use of renewables.

Sweden says it aims to completely wean itself off oil within 15 years - without building new nuclear plants.
The attempt is being planned by a committee of industrialists, academics, car manufacturers, farmers and others.

The country aims to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change damages economies and growing oil scarcity leads to price rises.

According to the Guardian newspaper, a Swedish minister said oil dependency could be broken by 2020.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is worried that oil supplies are peaking, shortly to dwindle, and that high oil prices could cause global economic recession.

"Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020," said Mona Sahlin, Sweden's minister of sustainable development.

"There shall always be better alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline."

The Scandinavian country, which was hard hit by oil price rises in the 1970s, now gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric power. In 2003, 26% of all energy consumed came from renewables, compared with an EU average of 6%.

The oil committee is to report to parliament in several months. Swedish energy ministry officials said they expected the panel to recommend further development of biofuels derived from its substantial forests.

It was also expected to expand other renewable energies such as wind and wave power.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4694152.stm

posted March 06, 2007 11:45 PM              

The National Farmers' Union (NFU) said bio-diesel could be produced locally for about 85p per litre.

"It is feasible without modification to vehicles," said Mr Martin.

There are hundreds of farmers nationwide who are poised to produce green fuel

Andrew Martin

"It would be very easy to do, without a huge amount of infrastructure."

The NFU stepped up its campaign to get the UK's bio-fuels industry on the road by driving a tractor run on bio-diesel along Brighton seafront on Monday in front of the Labour Party Conference.

After Hurricane Katrina shut refineries in the US, diesel prices went up to more than 97p a litre.

The NFU believes price fluctuations would be unnecessary if non-food crops could be turned into environmentally friendly ways of powering vehicles.

Nature's fuel

It wants to government to source 5.75% of road transport fuel from renewable sources by 2010, in line with EU targets.

"There are hundreds of farmers nationwide who are poised to produce green fuel," said Mr Martin.

"In the last century, we provided oats from the main form of transport - the horse - and in the 21st century we can grow nature's fuel for our road vehicles."

Mr Martin's project is being funded with £20,000 from the South East England Development Agency (SSEDA).

posted March 06, 2007 11:53 PM              

It has long been known - and not only by environmental enthusiasts - that bioethanol made from, say, the grains otherwise used to make whisky is perfectly suited as an automotive fuel.

Ms Leggate wants bioethanol to become a mainstream fuel

"You drink the best and you drive the rest," quips Graham Hilton who works for Wessex Grain's bioethanol subsidiary Green Spirit Fuels.

Racing drivers have been using it for years, and many of them swear by it.

"It's best for the environment and it doesn't lack power," says British touring car racer Fiona Leggate, who races a biofuel-powered Vauxhall.

"I'd love to see it as a mainstream fuel."

The future of motoring

It is a vision shared by Somerset county councillor Paul Buchanan, who is involved in an ambitious biofuel experiment where local police will drive a fleet of 40 Ford Focus cars powered by as much as 85% bioethanol made from locally grown grains.

The Saab Biopower is more powerful than its petrol equivalent

When the BBC took a biofuel Focus around the Somerset countryside it felt no different from driving an ordinary model, though finding the fuel is pretty tricky.

But this might gradually change.

From March this year half a dozen supermarket forecourts - in Taunton, Bridgwater, Bristol and Shepton Mallett - are preparing to supply the E85 biofuel under the Somerset Biofuel Project, an initiative which is seeking the "sustainable distribution of a locally grown, environmentally friendly fuel", according to Mr Hilton.

While this type of project is just the start, Mr Buchanan expects they will be "driving the sustainability agenda".

Environmentally friendly

Bioethanol made from grain produces 65% fewer greenhouse gases than petrol, according to the UK government agency Central Science Laboratory.

There is the capacity to mobilise capital to build infrastructure to produce and distribute biofuels, and once you get the scale, the cost will come down

Graham Meeks
Climate Change Capital

This is largely because the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the production and consumption of ethanol is "almost equal to that removed from the atmosphere when crops for conversion are being grown", according to Saab Great Britain.

"One hectare of wheat produces about 29,000 miles of motoring, enough to take a car around the equator and still have 4,000 miles of fuel left," adds Green Spirit Fuels

"The oil companies and the big car companies will be driven down this road by the consumer," says Mr Buchanan.

Converted cars

To a limited extent, it is happening already.

Some supermarket forecourts already mix ordinary petrol or diesel with biofuels, so that 5% of what drivers put in their tanks is bioethanol made from plants or trees.

And the practice is set to pick up pace after the government announced its Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation last autumn, which states that 5% of all motorcar fuel must come from renewable sources by 2010.

The way it has been positioned as a solution to UK motoring is naive

Biofuel industry official

Biofuel raises global dilemmas

But in order to move beyond this 5% target, cars must go through a relatively cheap conversion that essentially involves replacing rubber seals and aluminium parts with materials that are not eroded by the bioethanol, explains Andy Taylor, Ford Europe's director of corporate citizenship.

Both Ford and Saab have unveiled bioethanol-enabled models for the UK market, which can run on pure petrol, or any mixture of petrol and bioethanol up to 85%, if E85 is not available.

Saab says its E85-enabled 9-5 Biopower, which costs just £600 more than a standard 9-5, has the potential of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 70% while at the same time improving the car's power.

E85's higher octane rating adds 30bhp to the 150bhp turbocharged engine, and a 15% gain in fuel efficiency can be had at high speeds, said Kjell ac Bergstrom, chief executive, of Saab Automobile Powertrain.

"Turbocharged engines are particularly well suited to the benefits of ethanol," Mr Bergstrom says.

Potential profits

Such confident swagger is turning heads in the world of finance, according to Graham Meeks of Climate Change Capital, a specialist merchant bank.

Racing drivers have been using biofuels for years

"We're seeing an enormous amount of interest from investors in this sector," he says.

"The outlook is fairly positive," Mr Meeks insists - even though "there is some way to go in improving yields from crops", and despite bioethanol remaining a more expensive option than petrol due to "the cost of technology and the cost of feed stock".

In the near future, the biofuel industry can expect ever more support, both the government and from Brussels, as politicians look to both diversify fuel supply in order to improve fuel security, and to meet agreed reduction targets for carbon dioxide emissions, he predicts.

"There is the capacity to mobilise capital to build infrastructure to produce and distribute biofuels, and once you get the scale, the cost will come down," Mr Meeks says.

posted March 07, 2007 01:57 AM            

quote:

---

Your arguments are all style over substance acoustic. If you really knew anything, you'd know "why" it's true.

I asked a simple specific question and got an unfocused general answer. The usual from you.

---

That's all I have to say about that.

quote:

---

Let's try again, "what" energy source(s) is/are going to replace fossil fuels. Jump in acoustic. Take the plunge and commit yourself.

---

I told you that you can look up the numerous alternative energy solutions yourself. You are not unable, so I see no reason whatsoever to indulge you.

Thinking that somehow you are going to manage getting under my skin without my permission is an erroneous thought. I know you'd like to use Jan Spiller's information against me (and I don't blame you), but when it comes to psychology and understanding the inner workings of people you misjudge your position in relation to mine. Remember that this is an inborn trait of mine:

quote:

---

From past lives, these natives developed tremendous emotional sensitivity. When they take a moment to "tune in" to the emotional states of others, they accurately understand other people's needs and concerns and can speak to them in a way that rallies the necessary mental and emotional support to reach the goal. They do this automatically, although it is a gift that most other people do not possess.

---

posted March 07, 2007 06:26 AM            

Hello.
You posted information on green or biodiesel fuels which is something I've always been curious about. I think it has a lot of potential.
Have you ever worried, though, that it, too, could lead to disaster? I mean, we're talking about a lot of production of vegetation for energy consumption. A whole lot. Do you think need and/or greed could cause governments/growers to fall on pesticides, chemical fertilizers, bio-engineering and heaven knows what else to meet that need? I worry that it will. This technology would do us as much harm as good if people aren't willing to do it organically. That's just my opinion but I wonder what others think.

posted March 07, 2007 07:35 AM              

such as your own.

when i mentioned technology and knowledge, one area to which i was referring was the agricultural practice known as biodynamics. an anthroposophical concept that i'd think you'd appreciate. with knowledge, and application, such as this, we can do things in a viable, sustainable way.

i'll post a few examples from a previous thread.

posted March 07, 2007 08:12 AM              

What is Biodynamic agriculture? In seeking an answer let us pose the further question: Can the Earth heal itself, or has the waning of the Earths vitality gone too far for this? No matter where our land is located, if we are observant we will see sure signs of illness in trees, in our cultivated plants, in the water, even in the weather. Organic agriculture rightly wants to halt the devastation caused by humans; however, organic agriculture has no cure for the ailing Earth. From this the following question arises: What was the original source of vitality, and is it available now?

Biodynamics is a science of life-forces, a recognition of the basic principles at work in nature, and an approach to agriculture which takes these principles into account to bring about balance and healing. In a very real way, then, Biodynamics is an ongoing path of knowledge rather than an assemblage of methods and techniques.

Biodynamics is part of the work of Rudolf Steiner, known as anthroposophy - a new approach to science which integrates precise observation of natural phenomena, clear thinking, and knowledge of the spirit. It offers an account of the spiritual history of the Earth as a living being, and describes the evolution of the constitution of humanity and the kingdoms of nature. Some of the basic principles of Biodynamics are:

Broaden Our Perspective
Just as we need to look at the magnetic field of the whole earth to comprehend the compass, to understand plant life we must expand our view to include all that affects plant growth. No narrow microscopic view will suffice. Plants are utterly open to and formed by influences from the depths of the earth to the heights of the heavens. Therefore our considerations in agriculture must range more broadly than is generally assumed to be relevant...

Cosmic Rhythms
The light of the sun, moon, planets and stars reaches the plants in regular rhythms. Each contributes to the life, growth and form of the plant. By understanding the gesture and effect of each rhythm, we can time our ground preparation, sowing, cultivating and harvesting to the advantage of the crops we are raising. The Stella Natura calendar which is featured in this catalog offers an introduction to this new study.

Plant Life Is Intimately Bound Up with the Life of the Soil
Biodynamics recognizes that soil itself can be alive, and this vitality supports and affects the quality and health of the plants that grow in it. Therefore, one of Biodynamics fundamental efforts is to build up stable humus in our soil through composting.

A New View of Nutrition
We gain our physical strength from the process of breaking down the food we eat. The more vital our food, the more it stimulates our own activity. Thus, Biodynamic farmers and gardeners aim for quality, and not only quantity.

Chemical agriculture has developed short-cuts to quantity by adding soluble minerals to the soil. The plants take these up via water, thus by-passing their natural ability to seek from the soil what is needed for health, vitality and growth. The result is a deadened soil and artificially stimulated growth.

Biodynamics grows food with a strong connection to a healthy, living soil.

posted March 07, 2007 08:15 AM              

excerpt ~

quote:

---

clays, crystals, and the grand miscellany known as dusts of the soil, rated consideration long before hunting and gathering gave way to soil tillage. Gilgamesh endured because of his soil magic, and the Greek Dioscorides gave credit to the properties of clay for his extraordinary strength. Pliny the Elder devoted an entire chapter of National History to the subject. Michael Abhensera, in The Healing Clay, tells us that Russian soldiers received 200 grams of a special clay as rations, and the healing arts the world over rely on various mixtures -- Cutler's earth in France, for instance -- because "duplicating its properties through chemical or physical means is impossible." life plus life equals life. dead plus dead equals dead. mere chemistry cannot rebuild life. Indeed, there is a secret life in the enlivened dusts of the earth, and Rudolf Steiner made it his business to bring this reality into a modern context.

---

from The Enlivened Rock Powders ~

quote:

---

Steiner spoke and wrote: "the far planets, mars, jupiter and saturn, work upon the silica beneath the Earth's surface, assisting those influences from the sun which also work beneath the earth's surface. all that works below the earth's surface from mars, jupiter, saturn and the sun to influence the growth of plants works not directly, but in this way. it is first received by the earth and the earth then rays it upwards. thus, the influences that rise upward from the earthly soil for the growth of plants are in reality cosmic influences rayed back from the earth and working directly in the air and water over the earth. these relationships determine how the earthly soil, according to its constitution, works upon the growth of plants.

"modern man knows practically nothing of how the light behaves in the interior of the earth. he does not know that the silicous, that is, the cosmic stone or rock or sand received the light into the earth and makes it effective there.

"precisely with regard to this silicous principle, the earth gradually loses its power in the course of time. it loses it very slowly, therefore we do not notice it. nor must you forget that modern man seems unconcerned about the loss of silica. he thinks it insignificant for the growth of plants. in reality, it is of the greatest significance. we need the silica to attract and draw in the cosmic forces. now in the plant there must arise a clear interaction between the silica and the potassium, not the calcium. by the whole way in which we fertilize the soil, we must eliven it, so that the soil itself will aid in this relationship."

---

posted March 07, 2007 10:05 AM            

I've read up a bit on biodynamics but not nearly as much as I'd like. Do you happen to have a link available for the other thread?

Now I just need more time.

I do think more people are becoming aware/interested in doing the best they can regarding our soil, the health of plants and the Earth in general. I think incorporating more "natural" and "spiritual" ideas into the way we live our lives will make a big difference in what we can accomplish as a whole, without taking us back to the stone age.

posted March 07, 2007 11:15 AM            

"I asked a simple specific question and got an unfocused general answer. The usual from you."

quote:

---

That's all I have to say about that...acoustic

---

Fourth down and long for you acoustic. As usual, you must punt.

My purpose is not to get under your skin acoustic. Hope springs eternal that you will pull your head out of your rear, consult a dictionary when you are in a fog about definitions and gain the ability to discuss issues logically and rationally.

Consider this a good deed; the purpose of which is assisting you in pulling your head out of your rectum.

posted March 07, 2007 11:21 AM              

Maybe, people are crazy here..
you know, they all call me crazy, but if
you look around...
you'll see craziness, and illogical
behaviour...

just my observation

posted March 07, 2007 11:22 AM              

head in rear

=