Zach LarkinsMORE GLO-BULL WARMING NONSENSE
I thought I was done with this subject, but it keeps coming back like a bad rash. Before I get into it though, I have to acknowledge a writer who is putting up brilliant articles about the lies and deception the Al Gore is spreading. Howard, at Real Crash here on Orble, quotes further and probably better references than I did in my articles about this sham. He is clear and concise and anyone even remotely interested in the true science behind the glo-bull warming threat would be doing themselves a favour by reading his articles. He has done a wonderful job and I hope more people will come to see "Mr. Inconvenient Truth" for what he really does, as Howard shows.
Today's subject is our friend and icon of all that is true, Dr. David Suzuki. Firmly entrenched in the Gore camp, Suzuki has been traipsing around the nation selling his doom and gloom story that we'll all be dead from glo-bull warming by 4 PM next Thursday. However, he seems to be a bit on the defensive side as more and more people begin to question his ethics and methods. This article will rely heavily on what Suzuki himself has written.
Suzuki has described himself as being apolitical, yet one is hard pressed to remember when he ever took such heavy shots against the Liberals as he does the Conservatives. He is still of the mind that it is the governments job to regulate us all into being environmentally conscious. This is the liberal way of doing things. You are obviously too stupid to know what's good for you, so let the government lay a little law on you and save you from yourself.
He writes, "World-renowned economists like Sir Nicholas Stern are telling us that greatly reducing our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is critical to having a healthy economy in the not-too-distant future." Right, and when I want a medical opinion, I head for my mechanic. Economists might know the economy, but what do they know about the climate? Apparently Stern doesn't believe that adhering to the Kyoto Accords will cost us over 400,000 jobs. Hardly sounds like a healthy economy to me. And I'm sure that your idea of "the not-too- distant future" is different than mine. Like they say, ask 13 economists what they think about a particular subject and you'll get 13 different answers.
He goes on to say, "Air and water pollution is already costing our economy billions of dollars every year due to increased health care costs and lost work days. It's only sensible - sustainability should be a top priority of every government at every level." Strange. In an earlier article he said that the environment should take precedence over the economy. Which is it, Doctor?
He really hits the jackpot when he defends his choice of taking a bus on his tour. "We specifically chose to lease a bus with a modern, super-efficient diesel engine. Many people may not be aware, but diesel has a lower carbon footprint than gasoline. This is why there are so many diesel cars in fuel-conscious Europe." Pretty words. A new bus will automatically have the latest diesel engine in it. They are all modern and super efficient compared to just a few years ago. You go out and buy a diesel powered car and it too will have a "modern, super-efficient diesel engine", so he really isn't being much of a hero here. "We needed a big vehicle like a bus because it would be packed with an entire month's worth of office supplies, gear, clothes and food for up to a dozen people." First off, the bus had a total of 8 passengers, including the driver, at any given time, not the dozen he claims. Second, why do they have to take food? Did Canada suddenly run out of restaurants were they could have stopped for a break and a meal? They hired a driver for a reason. So that no one else had to drive the thing. Don't you think he would want a pit stop after 8 hours of driving? If Suzuki claims time restraints in having to be somewhere at a certain time so they had to share driving responsibility, they didn't need a designated driver.
"Many people may not be aware, but diesel has a lower carbon footprint than gasoline. This is why there are so many diesel cars in fuel-conscious Europe." Agreed that diesel might have less of a carbon footprint than gasoline. That's why you see those puffs of smoke come out of a diesel tailpipe that are somehow absent from gasoline engines. But as to why Europe has so many diesel powered vehicles? He answers his own question when he says they are very fuel-conscious over there. You see, in days past when diesel was about half the price of gas, you'd have to be an idiot not to have a diesel engine if gas cost over $5.00 per gallon. Europe is notorious for its narrow streets. Most people walk or bicycle to work out of necessity. They simply don't have the driving room we have here and so save their cars to be used only on weekends. They don't really give a rat's patoot about what kind of ‘carbon footprint' they're leaving. Geography and fuel prices tell them to use diesel.
"We decided to calculate the global-warming emissions from the tour and purchase internationally regulated credits to offset those emissions. These credits are like a self-imposed carbon tax. It was very important to us that the tour be carbon-neutral. Money spent on these "gold-standard" credits goes towards reducing an equal amount of emissions through energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Since climate change is a global problem, it doesn't matter where we reduce emissions, so long as we actually reduce them." So why not reduce them in places like China, where they are planning to build over 500 new coal-fired generating stations? (Remember writing this, Dr. Suzuki? "Replacing an old dirty coal-fired power plant with a wind farm, for example.") Why not reduce them in India or Brazil? Why let Russia off the hook? Why does all the reduction have to take place in the industrialized nations of North America? Why not spread the pain a little bit?
Suzuki hints at using biodiesel fuels. "It's non-toxic and when burned, produces less carbon dioxide and fewer of the most common air pollutants. Biodiesel is not without controversy. A large-scale conversion of forested land to grow crops for biodiesel could result in a huge net release of carbon into the atmosphere. And there are widespread concerns about using land to grow fuel that could be growing food." Huh? What is the difference if you plant trees or corn? The land doesn't know what's on it, so where does the ‘huge release of carbon' come from? And what difference could it possibly make if the land is used to grow fuel or food? Think corn or wheat here, folks. You can eat it or you can make fuel out of it. Again, where is the ‘huge release of carbon'?
Suzuki's 30 day tour is over. Hopefully his 15 minutes of fame will soon draw to a finish. No one needs to hear or believe the propaganda he and Gore are spreading. Let's pray they both fade into the sunset quickly.
Sources: David Suzuki Searching For Options CanWest News
Today's subject is our friend and icon of all that is true, Dr. David Suzuki. Firmly entrenched in the Gore camp, Suzuki has been traipsing around the nation selling his doom and gloom story that we'll all be dead from glo-bull warming by 4 PM next Thursday. However, he seems to be a bit on the defensive side as more and more people begin to question his ethics and methods. This article will rely heavily on what Suzuki himself has written.
Suzuki has described himself as being apolitical, yet one is hard pressed to remember when he ever took such heavy shots against the Liberals as he does the Conservatives. He is still of the mind that it is the governments job to regulate us all into being environmentally conscious. This is the liberal way of doing things. You are obviously too stupid to know what's good for you, so let the government lay a little law on you and save you from yourself.
He writes, "World-renowned economists like Sir Nicholas Stern are telling us that greatly reducing our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is critical to having a healthy economy in the not-too-distant future." Right, and when I want a medical opinion, I head for my mechanic. Economists might know the economy, but what do they know about the climate? Apparently Stern doesn't believe that adhering to the Kyoto Accords will cost us over 400,000 jobs. Hardly sounds like a healthy economy to me. And I'm sure that your idea of "the not-too- distant future" is different than mine. Like they say, ask 13 economists what they think about a particular subject and you'll get 13 different answers.
He goes on to say, "Air and water pollution is already costing our economy billions of dollars every year due to increased health care costs and lost work days. It's only sensible - sustainability should be a top priority of every government at every level." Strange. In an earlier article he said that the environment should take precedence over the economy. Which is it, Doctor?
He really hits the jackpot when he defends his choice of taking a bus on his tour. "We specifically chose to lease a bus with a modern, super-efficient diesel engine. Many people may not be aware, but diesel has a lower carbon footprint than gasoline. This is why there are so many diesel cars in fuel-conscious Europe." Pretty words. A new bus will automatically have the latest diesel engine in it. They are all modern and super efficient compared to just a few years ago. You go out and buy a diesel powered car and it too will have a "modern, super-efficient diesel engine", so he really isn't being much of a hero here. "We needed a big vehicle like a bus because it would be packed with an entire month's worth of office supplies, gear, clothes and food for up to a dozen people." First off, the bus had a total of 8 passengers, including the driver, at any given time, not the dozen he claims. Second, why do they have to take food? Did Canada suddenly run out of restaurants were they could have stopped for a break and a meal? They hired a driver for a reason. So that no one else had to drive the thing. Don't you think he would want a pit stop after 8 hours of driving? If Suzuki claims time restraints in having to be somewhere at a certain time so they had to share driving responsibility, they didn't need a designated driver.
"Many people may not be aware, but diesel has a lower carbon footprint than gasoline. This is why there are so many diesel cars in fuel-conscious Europe." Agreed that diesel might have less of a carbon footprint than gasoline. That's why you see those puffs of smoke come out of a diesel tailpipe that are somehow absent from gasoline engines. But as to why Europe has so many diesel powered vehicles? He answers his own question when he says they are very fuel-conscious over there. You see, in days past when diesel was about half the price of gas, you'd have to be an idiot not to have a diesel engine if gas cost over $5.00 per gallon. Europe is notorious for its narrow streets. Most people walk or bicycle to work out of necessity. They simply don't have the driving room we have here and so save their cars to be used only on weekends. They don't really give a rat's patoot about what kind of ‘carbon footprint' they're leaving. Geography and fuel prices tell them to use diesel.
"We decided to calculate the global-warming emissions from the tour and purchase internationally regulated credits to offset those emissions. These credits are like a self-imposed carbon tax. It was very important to us that the tour be carbon-neutral. Money spent on these "gold-standard" credits goes towards reducing an equal amount of emissions through energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Since climate change is a global problem, it doesn't matter where we reduce emissions, so long as we actually reduce them." So why not reduce them in places like China, where they are planning to build over 500 new coal-fired generating stations? (Remember writing this, Dr. Suzuki? "Replacing an old dirty coal-fired power plant with a wind farm, for example.") Why not reduce them in India or Brazil? Why let Russia off the hook? Why does all the reduction have to take place in the industrialized nations of North America? Why not spread the pain a little bit?
Suzuki hints at using biodiesel fuels. "It's non-toxic and when burned, produces less carbon dioxide and fewer of the most common air pollutants. Biodiesel is not without controversy. A large-scale conversion of forested land to grow crops for biodiesel could result in a huge net release of carbon into the atmosphere. And there are widespread concerns about using land to grow fuel that could be growing food." Huh? What is the difference if you plant trees or corn? The land doesn't know what's on it, so where does the ‘huge release of carbon' come from? And what difference could it possibly make if the land is used to grow fuel or food? Think corn or wheat here, folks. You can eat it or you can make fuel out of it. Again, where is the ‘huge release of carbon'?
Suzuki's 30 day tour is over. Hopefully his 15 minutes of fame will soon draw to a finish. No one needs to hear or believe the propaganda he and Gore are spreading. Let's pray they both fade into the sunset quickly.
Sources: David Suzuki Searching For Options CanWest News
