“The fact that an opinion is widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

Bertrand Russell

My car operates on ethanol made from corn. My car produces CO2 but it is
“ethanol CO2” so that’s OK. The ethanol production is subsidised by the
government.

I have a cow. I feed it corn. But now I will have to pay tax on the
CO2/methane the cow produces from the corn.

Why are cows discriminated against?

Read more: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/cows-cars-and-ethanol.pdf [PDF, 142 KB]

Ethanol produces more carbon dioxide than petrol.

Both petrol and ethanol produce carbon dioxide when burnt. But to produce the same energy requires more ethanol than petrol, and it produces more carbon dioxide.

Moreover producing ethanol from corn by fermentation also produces more carbon dioxide during the fermentation process. And then the dilute ethanol produced by fermentation (about 12%) has to be concentrated using a distillation process which requires more energy and more emissions. Burning ethanol rather than petrol thus probably increases the production of carbon dioxide.

For detailed calculations by Professor Jim Barrante see: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/petroleum-v-ethanol.pdf [PDF, 38 KB]

James R. Barrante is an Emeritus Professor in the Chemistry Department at Southern Connecticut State University. He has devoted his last ten years to the study of the physical chemistry of greenhouse gases. He is the author of two textbooks, Physical Chemistry for the Life Sciences (in Japanese) and Applied Mathematics for Physical Chemistry.

According to a new study by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Government support of biofuel production is costly, has a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security, and has a significant impact on world crop prices… Current biofuel support measures alone are expected to increase the average prices for wheat by about 5 per cent, corn by around 7 per cent, and vegetable oil by about 19 per cent over the next ten years.

In the U.S., last year’s harvest was 10.5 billion bushels, the third-largest crop ever. But instead of going into the maws of pigs or cattle or people, an increasing slice of that supply is being transformed into fuel for cars. The roughly 5 billion gallons of ethanol made in 2006 by 112 U.S. plants consumed nearly one-fifth of the corn crop. If all the scores of factories under construction or planned go into operation, fuel will gobble up no less than half of the entire corn harvest by 2008.

Full report see: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/biofuels-or-food.pdf [PDF, 49 KB]

“For the Greens, a pristine global environment represents earthy perfection. It underpins their ‘ecological wisdom’ and is at the core of the new ethic. It is to be protected and promoted at all costs. Hence, all old growth forests are to be locked up; logging is to be prohibited; wealth is to be scorned; economic growth is opposed; exclusive ownership of property is questioned; there should be a moratorium of fossil fuels exploration; dam construction should be discouraged; genetic engineering and agricultural monoculture is rejected; world trade should be reduced; and a barter economy encouraged.”

From part 2 of The Greens Agenda by Kevin Andrews, MP.

The Greens Agenda: Part 1 – Western culture and the Greens

The Greens Agenda: Part 2 – Ideology

The Greens Agenda: Part 3 – Economic Policies

The Greens Agenda: Part 4 – Social and other policies

Note: Because of the design of the www.kevinandrews.au.com Web site, your initial visit will prompt you to sign up for his newsletter. You can choose to skip that via the lower link there “Skip signup…” Once you have done that once, the links in this posting should work directly.

Beginning January 1, 2011, energy prices will skyrocket in California, due to the required use of renewable energy sources as established in AB32. This will add tremendous stress to an already struggling economy. With more money being spent to pay for basic necessities, less money is available to spend on discretionary items. This will hurt small businesses that will also be paying higher energy bills. Prices will have to be increased to cover the higher overhead costs. The loss of money in the economy combined with the rising cost of operating a business will result in many businesses having to close their doors. There is no better prescription for job killing legislation than this.

Alternative sources of energy are dramatically more expensive than conventional coal power. An article in The Morning Bell from The Heritage Foundation on October 21, 2010 reveals the prices of energy that President Barack Obama’s very own Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects for various sources of electricity per megawatt hour in 2016 (based on 2008 dollars) as follows:

• Conventional Coal Power $ 78.10
• Onshore Wind Power $149.30
• Offshore Wind Power $191.10
• Thermal Solar Power $256.60
• Photo-voltaic Solar Power $396.10

by Laura Rambeau Lee
Florida

Source: http://moveoverdotcom.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-california-dreaming.html

To reduce the number of dead ducks found in oils sands tailings ponds, I propose Syncrude construct an array of wind turbines around the margins of the tailings ponds.

Ducks would be humanely shredded by green-friendly blades and fall to the Earth where they would form neat piles that could be retrieved using carbon neutral electric vehicles. The carcasses would have less contamination and could be served in the Syncrude cafeteria in building 41-B, thus reusing the carbon that would have been released into the atmosphere had the ducks been left to decay in the wild. Electricity from the wind turbines could be used to cook the birds.

Boats for duck recovery would become unnecessary, the ducks would not be coated in oil and Greenpeace could feel happy that the collection vehicles are recharged by power supplied by the bird shredders.

For the entertainment of “greens” all over the world, web cameras could watch in awe as the ducks fly into the collection area. This would reduce the need for smug, self-satisfied hypocrites to burn oil sand-derived fuel up to Fort McMurray to protest for the benefit of jet-set fuel-wasters such as David Suzuki, Al Gore and James Cameron.

I am all for alternative energy, but to rely on the wind, for cities, is just plain stupid. Not a single fossil fuel plant has been made obsolete by the present subsidized wind power. As long as hospitals expect 24-hour power, we will need proper power plants.

Richard Haley
Edmonton
Canada

First Published:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/duck+death+proposal/3775063/story.html

To the head of BHP, Mr. Kloppers, a doubling of the price of electricity and massive rises in the price of fuel and groceries wouldn’t worry his household budget. It’s understandable that he would support a new tax on carbon or an ETS.

However, it’s a shame that Mr. Kloppers has not properly thought through his support of the Greens/Labor Carbon Tax.

If he properly considered the consequences of his proposal he would have realized that forcing Australian pensioners and families to pay more money in tax to the Federal and State governments will not stop the world’s climate from changing.

Even if you accepted the lie that man made carbon is changing the world’s climate for the worst, and even if all Australians shed themselves of every carbon producing material or activity, (we could go back to living in caves, wearing animal skins and burning candles) it would not change the climate one degree.

Even the Green zealots and Labor loonies who refuse to acknowledge the natural cycles of the earth’s orbital patterns (Milankovich Cycles) and the significant climatic variations (Ice ages and countless Earth Warming events) which follow, would have to acknowledge that Australia only produces 1% of the world’s man made carbon.

Mr. Kloppers must realize that the rest of the world has abandoned the idea of a Carbon Tax. If you look at the 6 August edition of The Economist, the world’s most respected magazine, you will find that an ETS style of scheme in America is dead.

Under the sub-headline “The Democrats abandon their efforts to limit emissions through legislation”, the writer of the article said:

“Harry Reid, the majority leader, having earlier abandoned as hopeless an effort to limit America’s emissions of greenhouse gases through a cap-and trade scheme, is proposing nothing more substantial than subsidies for home insulation.”

Obviously Mr. Kloppers isn’t aware of the political situation in America when he made the statement; “We do believe that such a global initiative will eventually come..”

If we follow Mr. Kloppers, the Greens/Labor plans for a carbon tax, then we will be embracing a job-killing stealth tax and abandoning our only advantage over the rest of the world – cheap reliable power (unless we become a nuclear nation).

Is this the real agenda for those who want to put a price on carbon, and who urge us to explore “other” sources of base load energy?

Kloppers, Turnbull, Greens and Labor need to be upfront about their agenda and plans for Australia and not intellectually hide behind the crazy cult of carbon.

Rob Messenger MLA
Member for Burnett
Queensland
17 Sep 2010

The Western Climate Establishment is cheating:

1. Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt.

2. Officials hide the Argo data, which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.

3. They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.

4. Climate scientists frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming, but don’t mention the full story: the planet started warming before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.

5. Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme that imitates the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading peer-reviewed climate journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?

6. The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western climate establishment, are all skeptical. As are many scientists from other branches of science, and many retired climate scientists (who no longer have anything to lose by speaking their minds).

Only a fool would ignore the message in the pattern

Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and point out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade. No one wants to be seen to be taken in by half-truths and shameless deception. Who wants to look gullible because they didn’t ask the obvious burning questions?

Those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here.

Dr Evans is a scientist who was on the climate gravy train, and was horrified by what he saw. He first blew the whistle in a polite way in 2008. Too many of the world’s politicians have not yet woken up, so here he collects the worst examples of climate shenanigans and explains them powerfully in terms that any politician can understand.

These photos speak for themselves. The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air and say “I didn’t know”. You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it “global warming”.

The full version of the Climate Corruption series: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/climate-corruption.pdf [PDF, 4.4 MB]

Source: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-how-many-excuses-does-it-take/