Barack Obama's polluted mind

How far do politicians believe they can push the global-warming scam? We know, after his inauguration, Barack Obama intends to officially classify carbon dioxide as a "dangerous pollutant." After such a declaration, his actions will reveal whether he truly views carbon dioxide as a threat to humanity or whether he is simply using a shameless scare tactic to further consolidate Federal power and to move the U.S. further along the road to socialism. If carbon dioxide is incredibly dangerous as Al Gore and Barack Obama claim it to be, then all options, for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, must be considered.

Once President Obama declares carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant, every single American brewery, winery, and distillery will be, by definition, a "dangerous polluter." Thus, if manmade carbon dioxide output must be drastically reduced to save the planet and humanity itself, then President Obama must strongly consider reinstating alcohol prohibition in these United States. Al Gore, to date, hasn't had the guts to push the global-warming scam to the point of suggesting global alcohol prohibition and I highly doubt President Obama has the guts to do so in the U.S. Both of these political hacks, after all, are socialists and certainly are not in love with Mother Earth and humanity, but with power and celebrity.

Anyone with a fifth-grade education understands that the fermentation process is integral to producing alcoholic beverages. In the fermentation process, yeast interacts with sugars to create ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. Uh oh, there is that evil "pollutant" carbon dioxide. Who would have ever guessed the wonderful wines, beers, and distilled spirits we enjoy so much are born from pollution? Come to think of it, the beers and champagnes populating store shelves everywhere still contain carbon dioxide. By Barack Obama's definition, I would be drinking a dangerous pollutant every time I enjoy one of my favorite ales. Should I consult a doctor before drinking pollution? Even if prohibition prevents me from drinking polluted adult beverages, in the future, what about soda pops and naturally-carbonated sparkling waters? Should these polluted beverages be banned as well? Perhaps President Obama will provide us with some guidelines about ingesting pollution.

If President Obama (and Al Gore for that matter) sincerely believes carbon dioxide poses such a dire threat to Mother Earth and humanity, then the carbon dioxide emissions from breweries, wineries, and distilleries would be viewed as a serious problem. In the United States alone, annual wine production is about 2.44 billion liters while annual beer production is approximately 23 billion liters. Throw in distilled spirits and it is inescapable to conclude that a whole lot of manmade carbon dioxide is being generated by wineries, breweries and distilleries. Once President Obama pronounces carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant, what will he do about the "pollution" emanating from breweries, wineries, and distilleries?

The first thing President Obama should do is to lead by example and ban all alcoholic beverages from the White House (Al Gore should do the same in his household). Secondly, he and Al Gore should create a national awareness as to the polluting nature of the adult-beverage industry with the objective of building a consensus to bring back prohibition in order to save our planet and the human race. These two shrill politicians have asserted that the stakes are quite literally this supremely high, hence foregoing alcoholic beverages is a sacrifice all Americans should be prepared to make. For goodness' sake, our planet is at stake!

Let's take Barack Obama's absurd assertion, that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant, one step further. By using Obama's "logic," life itself is built upon pollution. It makes me wonder, once again, if our new President is smarter than a fifth grader. For if one is familiar with photosynthesis - and most fifth graders are - it is a process of converting light energy to chemical energy and storing it in the bonds of sugar. Plants only need light energy, carbon dioxide and water to make the aforementioned sugar. Photosynthesis, which cannot take place without carbon dioxide, occurs in plants (and a few bacteria) and is responsible for feeding nearly all life on Earth. But let's not stop there. Another vital function photosynthesis performs pertains to generating the very oxygen which oxygen-breathing animals require for survival. So let's get this straight Mr. Obama, you believe the life-giving process of photosynthesis is built upon pollution? If this is your firm conviction, then you have left me wondering if enough oxygen is making it to your brain.

Yet what I do know now is that the gospel, according to Barack Obama, avows that life itself is dependent upon pollution. How utterly surreal.

Barack Obama, Al Gore, and politicians around the world are using global warming, and the outrageous lie that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, to increase state power and, thereby, reduce human liberty. It is an incredibly powerful scam which is frightening people into willingly giving up their freedoms in exchange for "saving" the planet. Therefore, step by step, country by country, the global-warming scare is helping politicians pave the road to socialism.

So why don't we hear American, British, French, German and other politicians calling for the shuttering of breweries, distilleries, and wineries (or at least taxing their products into oblivion)? It is the same reason you will never hear an American politician call for a $100/hour minimum wage or for sending every adult American a $1,000,000 stimulus check. Taking a scam too far leads to intense examination and exposes the scammers for the frauds they are. Hence, gunning after wine, beer, and spirits makers would undoubtedly create such a backlash, against the global-warming charlatans, that the scam wouldn't hold up under such mass scrutiny. After all, if you are compelling people to give up alcohol - to help save the planet - then the science had better be extremely sound. Questionable science, built upon faulty computer models, simply won't cut it.

As Barack Obama, using parts of FDR's playbook, attempts to lead us further down the road to socialism, be assured global warming will be used as a weapon to mentally terrorize Americans into further exchanging liberty for "safety." It is a near-certainty, nonetheless, that breweries, distilleries, and wineries will not be deemed "dangerous polluters" in spite of the fact carbon dioxide is a byproduct of fermentation. To be sure, this will expose the hypocrisy of politicians, such as Obama. And, it will also reveal the grandiose concept, of saving the Earth from global warming, is nothing more than a ruse designed to help governments grab more power.

In George Reisman's phenomenal book Capitalism, he describes why socialists such as Al Gore, Barrack Obama, and for that matter Arnold Schwarzenegger (who has turned out to be a greenie) will leave adult-beverage makers alone - in spite of their prodigious carbon dioxide emissions:

It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.

Indeed, Barrack Obama's mind may be polluted with contradictions and megalomania, but he and his ilk are savvy enough to have learned the lessons from America's failed experiment with alcohol prohibition (combined with the fact that anthropogenic global warming is supported by flimsy science). Accordingly, it is much easier to keep the lid on a citizenry permitted to legally self-medicate with alcohol - especially during the present economic depression - than to draw the ire of citizens forced to seek adult beverages on the black market. So raise your glass of wine and say "cheers" to Barack Obama: our new Hypocrite-in-Chief.

Source







Energy-guzzling plasma TVs will be banned in EU eco blitz

The plasma screen television is poised to become the next victim of the battle to curb energy use. Giant energy-guzzling flatscreens are expected to be banned under legislation due to be agreed by the EU this spring. Plasma screens have been nicknamed the '4x4s' of the living room because they use up to four times as much electricity and are responsible for up to four times as much carbon dioxide as traditional cathode ray tube sets.

The most energy intensive will be phased out under the new EU standards for minimum energy performance, which will follow the voluntary withdrawal of the traditional 100watt light bulb. The remaining TVs of all types will have to carry energy rating labels designed to make it easy to distinguish between the best and worst performers. LCD flat screen TVs are much more energy efficient than their plasma cousins so are unlikely to be banned. A 42in LCD TV uses similar amounts of energy to a much smaller traditional set. A spokesman for the Department-for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the plasma TV would not be banned completely, with eco-friendly sets remaining on the market.

The moves are part of an effort to tackle climate change by stemming the spiralling electricity consumption in households. It involves phasing out wasteful devices and introducing low-energy alternatives. Families have nearly three times as many electrical appliances and gadgets as a generation ago and the amount of electricity used to power them has doubled. Today Britain has 60million television sets - one for every person in the country. Plasma screens, which are common in pubs and supermarkets, as well as in homes, are among the most popular buys.

A Defra spokesman said that in the past five years the main TV in many households has changed from being a 24-32in cathode ray model to a 32-42 flatscreen TV.

Source






New solar panel roof on a Prius can only run a small fan

About 10 watts output at a guess. But Japan makes a good living out of selling gimmicks to praise-seekers



THE new version of the world's biggest selling petrol-electric car will be partly powered by the sun. The third generation Toyota Prius, unveiled at the Detroit motor show overnight, will be available with a solar panel sunroof when it goes on sale in Australia in June priced from $40,000.

The solar system runs an air circulation fan which cools the car while it is parked, and it can be activated by a remote control so the cabin is cool before you drive off.

Source






The correctness of electric cars

From the inimitable Jeremy Clarkson



All of which brings me on to the curious case of the battery-powered Tesla sports car that I reviewed recently on Top Gear. Things didn't go well. The company claimed it could run, even if driven briskly, for 200 miles, but after just a morning the battery power was down to 20% and we realised that it would not have enough juice for all the shots we needed. Happily, the company had brought a second car along, so we switched to that. But after a while its motor began to overheat. And so, even though the first was not fully charged, we unplugged it - only to find that its brakes weren't working properly. So then we had no cars.

Inevitably, the film we had shot was a bit of a mess. There was a handful of shots of a silver car. Some of a grey car. And only half the usual gaggle of nonsense from me shouting "Power" and making silly metaphors. And to make matters worse, we had the BBC's new compliance directive hanging over us like an enormous suffocating blanket. We had to be sure that what we said and what we showed was more than right, more than fair and more than accurate. Phone calls were made. Editorial policy wallahs were consulted. Experts were called in. No "i" was left undotted. No "t" was left uncrossed. No stone remained unturned in our quest for truth and decency.

Tesla could not complain about what was shown because it was there. And here's the strange thing. It didn't. But someone did. Loudly and to every newspaper in the world. The Daily Telegraph said we'd been caught up in a new fakery row. The Guardian accused us of being "underhanded". The New York Times wondered if we'd been "misleading". The Daily Mail said I could give you breast cancer.

This was weird. Tesla, when contacted by reporters, gave its account of what happened and it was exactly the same as ours. It explained that the brakes had stopped working because of a blown fuse and didn't question at all our claim that the car would have run out of electricity after 55 miles.

So who was driving this onslaught? Nobody in the big wide world ever minds when I say a BMW 1-series is crap or that a Kia Rio is the worst piece of machinery since the landmine. And yet everyone went mad when I said the Tesla, the red-blooded sports car and great white hope for the world's green movement, "absolutely does not work".

I fear that what we are seeing here is much the same thing professors see when they claim there is no such thing as man-made global warming. Immediately, they are drowned out by an unseen mob, and then their funding dries up. It's actually quite frightening.

The problem is, though, that really and honestly, the US-made Tesla works only at dinner parties. Tell someone you have one and in minutes you will be having sex. But as a device for moving you and your things around, it is about as much use as a bag of muddy spinach.

Yes, it is extremely fast. It's all out of ideas at 125mph, but the speed it gets there is quite literally electrifying. For instance, 0 to 60 takes 3.9sec. This is because a characteristic of the electric motor, apart from the fact it's the size of a grapefruit and has only one moving part, is massive torque.

And quietness. At speed, there's a deal of tyre roar and plenty of wind noise from the ill-fitting soft top, but at a town-centre crawl it's silent. Eerily so. Especially as you are behind a rev counter showing numbers that have no right to be there - 15,000, for example.

Through the corners things are less rosy. To minimise rolling resistance and therefore increase range, the wheels have no toe-in or camber. This affects the handling. So too does the sheer weight of the 6,831 laptop batteries, all of which have to be constantly cooled. But slightly wonky handling is nothing compared with this car's big problems. First of all, it costs 90,000 pounds. This means it is three times more than the Lotus Elise, on which it is loosely based, and 90,000 times more than it is actually worth. Yes, that cost will come down when the Hollywood elite have all bought one and the factory can get into its stride. But paying 90,000 for such a thing now indicates that you believe in goblins and fairy stories about the end of the world.

Of course, it will not be expensive to run. Filling a normal Elise with petrol costs 40 pounds. Filling a Tesla with cheap-rate electricity costs just 3.50. And that's enough to take you - let's be fair - somewhere between 55 and 200 miles, depending on how you drive. But if it's running costs you are worried about, consider this. The 60,000 or so you save by buying an Elise would buy 15,000 gallons of fuel. Enough to take you round the world 20 times. And there's more. Filling an Elise takes two minutes. Filling a Tesla from a normal 13-amp plug takes about 16 hours. Fit a beefier three-phase supply to your house and you could complete the process in four (Tesla now says 3«). But do not, whatever you do, imagine that you could charge your car from a domestic wind turbine. That would take about 25 days.

You see what I mean. Even if we ignore the argument that the so-called green power that propels this car comes from a dirty great power station, and that it is therefore not as green as you might hope, we are left with the simple fact that it takes a long time to charge it up and the charge doesn't take you very far. We must also remember that both the cars I tried went wrong.

In the fullness of time, I have no doubt that the Tesla can be honed and chiselled and developed to a point where the problems are gone. But time is one thing a car such as this does not have. Because while Tesla fiddles about with batteries, Honda and Ford are surging onwards with hydrogen cars, which don't need charging, can be fuelled normally and are completely green. The biggest problem, then, with the Tesla is not that it doesn't work. It's that even if it did, it would be driving down the wrong road.

Source







Australia: Lying Greenie haters exposed

The pastoralist nephew of one of Queensland's richest men believes he was "crucified" by false scientific claims that he had been developing his property to take water illegally from the last free-flowing river in the Murray-Darling Basin. The University of NSW has admitted the research accusing Jake Berghofer was funded by opponents of irrigation development, and has been forced to back away from the findings by some of its most senior scientists.

Mr Berghofer said he had been "crucified" by the findings of the university's School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences that he had breached a moratorium on the Paroo River. "It's not right that a big university can get away with trying to destroy someone who hasn't done anything wrong," Mr Berghofer said. His uncle, Toowoomba businessman Clive Berghofer, who has an estimated fortune of $327 million, saidhis nephew had been shabbily treated. "Jake is a very hard worker and he hasn't done anything wrong," he said.

An investigation by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water concluded that a series of findings in the UNSW study were wrong. The study claimed that irrigation works on Mr Berghofer's property, Springvale, south of Eulo, breached a 2003 agreement between the Queensland and NSW governments to protect the Paroo, the only river in the Murray-Darling Basin with no irrigation. The study said satellite imaging last year showed that since a moratorium on irrigation works was introduced for the Paroo in 2001, a new channel system had been developed on the property and a 21ha water storage built. It said that of nine storages on Springvale, only three were visible in satellite imaging produced in 2002. "All but two of the levee banks that existed in 2002 had new works around their perimeter that might increase storage capacity," it said.

The study triggered an avalanche of criticism of Mr Berghofer when itwas released late last year, with South Australian Premier Mike Rann describing the irrigation works as an "act of terrorism". However, the state investigation concluded that all the works referred to in the report were either completed or approved before the 2001 moratorium. Queensland Natural Resources Minister Craig Wallace said there were no breaches of the Paroo River agreement and that Mr Berghofer had done nothing wrong.

Richard Kingsford, who oversaw the study, conceded that the irrigation works identified on the property might have been legal, and that the agreement might not have been breached. "That could be the case but I think there is still a potential breach," Professor Kingsford said. "Even if it's legal, we still should be concerned about irrigation in the only Murray-Darling system river that is undeveloped." Professor Kingsford said the study was funded by the NSW-based Australian Floodplain Association, a fierce critic of irrigation upstream in the Queensland sector of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Paroo River Association president Robert Bartlett said the Queensland Government was "covering up" for Mr Berghofer. "The Paroo is in near pristinecondition and it should be able to remain that way," Mr Bartlett said. But Mr Berghofer said the irrigation work identified by the university was intended only to stop storage leakages; that it was covered by government permits; and that it was located nowhere near the Paroo River. "I'm a small bloke trying to grow a bit of hay and they've tried to crucify me," he said. Mr Berghofer said Professor Kingsford and other critics had ignored invitations to visit his property.

In June, the three-year Sustainable Rivers Audit found that of the basin's 23 rivers, only the Paroo in western Queensland was in good health.

SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

*****************************************