Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
Sounds quite reasonable.
I thought you just said on a recent post that your Green friends do not support Biofuel, or was it just ethanol that they “Never” supported! Maybe it was just Corn Ethanol? Maybe it was just corn ethanol that replaced food crops?
Mike,
veer good. You are actually reasoning!
TonyD:
Here is a recent overview of the “Benefits” of Biofuels other than Corn:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/02/13/europes-palm-oil-devastation-scorched-earth-to-save-the-planet/
Mike
Tony does flip flop.
oh, wait, he will say it only appears he flip flops
“Biofuels Worse Than Fossil Fuels, Studies Find”
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41119
“Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5867/1235.abstract
well I guess…
….starve them out
Isn’t sad that bio fuels produce 4 times the CO2 petroleum fuels do. Sad for the enviros anyway.
true that…………
The Russians and Japanese are working on perfecting a method of capturing methane clathrates that are leaching CH4 into the atmosphere. We could convert that dangerous CH4 into less dangerous CO2 by burning it as fuel. There are hundreds of years worth of methane to be captured and burned. It’s just so wonderful that Mother Earth always seems to provide for man’s energy needs.
Outstanding work Steve! This post and and recent ones show that once again the alarimsts are clearly duplicitous in their actions. Biofuels are fruition of alarmist machinations.
MostAll of the alarmists I know also wet themselves about over-population and the earth’s ability to feed the populous. For any of them to say they couldn’t anticipate the world’s current food prices and shortages is completely and totally disingenuous. They were the ones that caused this and they should be held accountable in the most extreme legal prejudice.Then there’s another well-known alarmist cause, called “land use”. Steve clearly shows where people in the alarmist camp were fully aware of the land use issues. They advocated it anyway. The only word I can use to accurately describe their actions is murderous. Steven has shown this to be intentionally done.
As recently as the lame duck session after the 2010 election (just a couple of months ago) the Democrats pushed through an extension of the ethanol supports. They did this in the lame duck session to avoid angering the voters before the election. Over at Grist I’ve been asking why the Dems did this but I haven’t gotten a straight answer yet. All I can figure is that the ethanol lobby pays politicians, especially Dems quite well.
The Republicans’ proposed budget cuts remove support for ethanol.
They always propose but don’t show on wedding day.
Food? Who needs food? We don’t need no stinkin food. We have to have alternative energies.
OK Tony, a challenge for you.
Find any green organisation that campaigned against corn ethanol before say 2008.
Or 2009?
Paul,
I guess you didn’t read my comment that had numerous articles from EDF and UN warning about dangers of Ethanol from Corn from …… wait for it….. 2007.
But what about the greenies?
Biofuels will probably lead to dangerous food shortages when the next 1930’s type drought cycle comes around. The alarmists will blame those droughts on global warming when in reality they are a result of a natural cycle that is due to take place in the near future.
Jim Rogers is not optimistic about the economy, especially food prices. Egypt may just be the beginning.
9:33 video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk1beTw2IXk
Marc Faber sees more problems like Egypt coming in other countries because food and energy prices are going up.
5:38 video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofeFBZmTAEo
….food prices are a leading indicator of inflation…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yboJZxgMaCs&NR=1
…buy a farm and a gun….now you need…..(watch and see what he says)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwmNprLpKQQ
I don’t know what all the fuss is about anyway.
So what, if a few people die. We have done something to save the Poley Bears, and surely that is what matters.
amazing how no one actually reads what I say, and almost every time I comment assume things that have no relation to what I actually write.
Unfortunately I don’t have time like I used to to continue these bizarre twisting irrational journeys with you folks, but it is funny that no one read the links I posted.
I assume this means you cannot find any references to green organisations that campaigned against corn ethanol.
Au Contraire,
it means I already posted numerous links from one organization that are consistent with other environmental organizations that were against it.
Also someone else posted an article that was against it thinking it was an article that was for it.
So far I am batting 1.000 with your team kicking an own goal through the goalkeepers legs (sorry to mix sports analogies)
Sorry but I have not seem them so please post again the ones who campaigned against corn ethanol.
Oops,
they were on a different related post
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/alarmists-say-now-that-they-never-supported-biofuels/
There are a certain brand of activists who have a goal, suppressed or just lurking below the surface, of returning society to its preindustrial state. For this type, support for or the condoning of new unproven energy technologies would be a favoured tactic, a “ruse de guerre”. One would choose a proven technology such as coal fired power generation and attack it viciously whilst assuaging the public opinion through giving possibly false hope in the new unproven technology. With coal fired power on life support, they can move on to attack the next technology, perhaps nuclear. Seemingly, activists are in the intermediate stage of not exactly attacking biofuels but just distancing themselves from previous endorsement. But if biofuels become even remotely successful, they will be attacked by this faction.
I propose a most interesting question to ask a CAGW activist (if you could get an honest answer). If it turned out that you were wrong, if science were to show that there will be no catastrophic effects from man’s emissions of CO2, would you be delighted or disappointed? It is my subjective impression that, overwhelmingly, the result would be disappointment.
I recall that Phil Jones said he hoped that his hypothesis of global warming was correct as it would prove he was right.
Never mind all the disasters that would accrue as a result.
Key word there is “recall”.
I have read a few climate scientists publicly state that they wish they were wrong. Of course generals and dictators all say they wish they didn’t have to massacre all those people, but they were forced to.
Tony
I am pretty sure it was in the BBC interview he did last year.
Check it out and I will apologise if I am wrong.
Paul,
I just read it, if you are talking about this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm.
saw nothing in there that has anything to do with his hopes about the reality of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
In the paper today:
If the Egyptians are hungry, let them eat ethanol
In other words global warming did not cause the crisis in Tunisia and Egypt, but global warmists did!
Bruce,
that is not a bad article. Once profit gets into the picture and lobbyists can put pressure regarding subsidies, you end up with problems