An Inconvenient Truth

[supermom262]

B&Jdarg and supermom26.2 thank you for your comments. Jen and I worked on this event for a couple of months. Jen stopped working two weeks before the event and devoted all her time to getting it together. She did this for free because she cares about her community. Your comments and the many others we received last night made it all worth while. It is important to keep the dialogue going on the issue. I encourage everyone to talk to your friends and family about it.
Just an F.Y.I., we will continue communicating with Waste Management on Monday. We hope to get a blue bag program started until the curbside recycling begins end of 2007 (thank you to the woman who suggested this). We will also be discussing a "freecycle" program. These programs already exist in various places around the country including Gainesville FL. With freecycle residents could drop off materials they no longer need or want, or pick up any materials they could use for free.
We will also continue speaking with Aaron Bradshaw about possible green energy alternatives.
There were handbills at the event last night listing 13 quick steps you can take to reduce the waste in their home. I have worked with people who have been able to reduce their electric bills by as much as $75 a month by implementing just a few of the steps. I will put the stack of handbills in the Seaside post office so anyone can reach them day or night. Please give them to friends and family as well. For any "do-it-yourself" folks feel free to contact me via SoWal with any questions. I would be happy to give anyone a how to session.

Thank you for all your hard work. The Cub Scouts Pack 562 are having a lesson on recycling next Thursday at 5 pm at St Rita's portables. Is there some one who can come and give an age appropriate (7 & 8 yr olds) talk?
Maybe you can tell me who to contact? I was thinking about your example of reducing the electric bill - keeping a journal for 30 days, listing the appliances that can be unplugged (computers, hair dryers, cell phone chargers etc.) and compare it after. I don't know if they could keep up with it but I bet the differences would be eye-opening.

 

[TripleB]

Many of those who depended on corporate mass media and in particular Fox News for their information were more likely to be cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq and to vote for ?W? not just the first time but also the second.

As it turned out both were disastrous decisions. In a democracy the stakes are too high to have a misinformed electorate.

Surveys show that those that watched / listened to PBS/NPR are better informed. They were more skeptical of attacking Iraq and were less likely to vote for ?W?.

If you consider a news source that is more factually accurate biased then you have a peculiar view of reality. But then again ?W?s grasp of reality seems a little shaky too.

By the way you might want to check your spelling of ?bipartisan?.

Who needs spell check with you around? Besides, you listen to NPR so you're smarter

 

[A Zalace]

Supermom26.2- I think I have the perfect people to come give an age appropriate talk. I will send a private email to your account today as soon as I speak with them and get their contact information. As for the journaling project, I think it is an excellent idea and I would love to brainstorm with you on different ways we could do this. I recently had an eye opening experience in my own home. My kitchen sink became severely clogged. After disassembling all the plumbing I placed a five gallon bucket under the drain to catch water while I worked on the sink. We wash our dishes by hand, and try to be very careful to keep the water at a trickle. By having the 5 gallon bucket under the sink we were able to measure exactly how much water was being used this way. Washing a sink completely full of dishes took 12 gallons of water. I was shocked. Now we plug the sink, fill it with about 3-4 inches of water, and then wash all the dishes in this same soapy water. We only turn the water on to rinse the dishes clean before putting them in the rack. Doing things this way uses only about 1-1.5 gallons of water, and it isn't more difficult.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Many of those who depended on corporate mass media and in particular Fox News for their information were more likely to be cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq and to vote for ?W? not just the first time but also the second.

As it turned out both were disastrous decisions. In a democracy the stakes are too high to have a misinformed electorate. ...

You are right. Thank God we have a Republic form of government. Maybe our founding fathers knew that we Americans would be more concerned with Budweiser and football, rather than politics.

 

[30A Skunkape]

You are right. Thank God we have a Republic form of government. Maybe our founding fathers knew that we Americans would be more concerned with Budweiser and football, rather than politics.

I think the founding fathers were into Sam Adam's homebrew and pitching horseshoes

 

[30A Skunkape]

I am posting this for general consumption and consideration without any comment other than that I found this interesting. It is from the US Senate website.

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762 marc_morano@epw.senate.gov (8:50pm ET)

The Weather Channel?s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


The Weather Channel?s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen?s blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society?s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. [Note: Hurricanes (Cyclones) in the Southern Hemisphere do rotate clockwise. Also, Cullen and the media have ignored the growing climate skepticism by prominent scientists see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD ]

Cullen?s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen?s December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine?s Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568


Cullen?s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC?s summary for policymakers. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=21CC88EC-CCA6-4A61-8C2E-78FA8DE4850D

Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has routinely promoted celebrity environmental views. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200504\SPE20050414a.html & http://press.weather.com/index.php/press_releases/109.html The Weather Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.
Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen?s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, see: http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert

Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=3EE352B0-5D2E-4CC0-BD6B-304E3F6E0E2D

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air?s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute?s small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?" See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=07F23E38-D271-4300-AC40-90C84A49134A

That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is reportedly downgrading man?s impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A


Related Links:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f339c09a-802a-23ad-4202-611ef8047a6b
INHOFE SPEECH ON POLAR BEARS AND GLOBAL WARMING

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A
UN DOWNGRADES MAN'S IMPACT AND COW 'EMISSIONS' MORE DAMAGING THAN CO2 FROM CARS

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8F5C9829-C459-4D17-89BB-3E3B04D8D444
SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF "SKEPTIC?S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1997BFAC-3722-416E-9FB8-32A396031D73
INHOFE SAYS NEW UN ASSESSMENT PROVES FEARS OF MANMADE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING ARE ?UNSUSTAINABLE?

###

 

[TripleB]

I am posting this for general consumption and consideration without any comment other than that I found this interesting. It is from the US Senate website.

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762 marc_morano@epw.senate.gov (8:50pm ET)

The Weather Channel?s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


The Weather Channel?s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen?s blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society?s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. [Note: Hurricanes (Cyclones) in the Southern Hemisphere do rotate clockwise. Also, Cullen and the media have ignored the growing climate skepticism by prominent scientists see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD ]

Cullen?s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen?s December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine?s Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568


Cullen?s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC?s summary for policymakers. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=21CC88EC-CCA6-4A61-8C2E-78FA8DE4850D

Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has routinely promoted celebrity environmental views. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200504\SPE20050414a.html & http://press.weather.com/index.php/press_releases/109.html The Weather Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.
Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen?s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, see: http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert

Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=3EE352B0-5D2E-4CC0-BD6B-304E3F6E0E2D

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air?s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute?s small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?" See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=07F23E38-D271-4300-AC40-90C84A49134A

That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is reportedly downgrading man?s impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A


Related Links:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f339c09a-802a-23ad-4202-611ef8047a6b
INHOFE SPEECH ON POLAR BEARS AND GLOBAL WARMING

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A
UN DOWNGRADES MAN'S IMPACT AND COW 'EMISSIONS' MORE DAMAGING THAN CO2 FROM CARS

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8F5C9829-C459-4D17-89BB-3E3B04D8D444
SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF "SKEPTIC?S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1997BFAC-3722-416E-9FB8-32A396031D73
INHOFE SAYS NEW UN ASSESSMENT PROVES FEARS OF MANMADE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING ARE ?UNSUSTAINABLE?

###

There was going to be a seminar on this subject today in LA but it was cancelled due the the snow flurries they were getting.

 

[Jdarg]

There was going to be a seminar on this subject today in LA but it was cancelled due the the snow flurries they were getting.

He's baaaaack.....

 

[TripleB]

He's baaaaack.....

....and badder than ever!

 

[Jdarg]

....and badder than ever!

You been saving up?