It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it’s the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it.

I don’t believe I have ever seen a single line that sums up the core issue of liberalism as it relates to global warming. 

The above quote came from the first story I found today.

Gore Movie Contains ‘One of the Single Stupidest Statements Ever Put on Film’

Though Austin Chronicle writer Robert Bryce is likely not a household name, his column published in Thursday’s Energy Tribune is a must-read for all anthropogenic global warming skeptics.

In “Al Gore’s Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense,” Bryce not only skewered the Global Warmingist in Chief’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” but he also deliciously mocked all the sycophant devotees of the former vice president that have failed to recognize the obvious as they tour the country professing imminent planetary doom at the hands of a naturally occurring gas that happens to be a necessity to all forms of life.

Here’s my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that’s harsh criticism. But it’s the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: “In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero.”

This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore’s movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie - including, particularly, Gore himself - paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, “Hey, what about breathing? Don’t we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?”

I recommend that all liberals who really care about GW as a serious life threatening issue stop breathing this instant or practice what they preach.

Absurd indeed.

Not only is absolute reductions effectively impossible, the fact is that many of our society’s efforts to reduce emissions are not only effective, they make matters worse.

A Really Inconvenient Truth: Kyoto Protocol Destroying Ozone Layer

Here’s something the mainstream media are guaranteed to ignore: “The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says.”

Didn’t hear about this? Well, how could you, for although Reuters published its article on the subject Monday, no other mainstream press outlet thought it was newsworthy.

Not one!

Sounds familiar, since I blogged about that yesterday.

Alas, there were even more worrisome revelations in this Reuters piece that folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio would find very inconvenient if media actually did their job and reported them (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):

In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University’s Michael Wara.

[...]

At the heart of the clash is a carbon trading scheme under Kyoto, worth $5 billion last year, whereby rich countries pay poorer ones to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf, called the clean development mechanism (CDM).

The most popular type of project has been to destroy a potent greenhouse gas known as HFC 23, one of a family of so-called hydrofluorocarbons, in China and India.

The problem is that HFC 23 is a waste product in the manufacture of a refrigerant gas which damages the ozone layer, called HCFC 22, and chemical plants have used their CDM profits to ramp up production.

The problem all along with Kyoto was it was a feel good treaty that did nothing to actually make a different.

The US (under the recommendation of AL GORE) chose not to sign it for good reason.

On a local level we have a comparison on three people, comparing their feelings about being eco friendly to their actual footprint.  The result was rather ironic.

Magazine Finds ‘Eco-Friendly’ Woman to Have the Largest Carbon Footprint

Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who’s got the lowest carbon footprint of them all? The “eco-conscious” one, says Marie Claire magazine.

An “urban hipster,” a “mountain maven” and a “globe-trotter” competed to see who “[was] earth-friendly and whose carbon footprint [was] to blame for drowning polar bears and worse” in the September 2007 issue of Marie Claire.

The article, entitled, “Whose Carbon Footprint is the Smallest,” found that globe-trotter “Josie,” who “considers herself more eco-conscious than most people,” had the largest carbon footprint.

Josie “recently earned a certificate in conservation biology from Columbia University” but “caught travel fever” last year and went to “China, Hong Kong, Germany Washington, Utah, Brazil, Ecuador and Costa Rica.”

According to the judge of the competition, author of “The Rough Guide to Climate Change” Robert Henson, “Josie’s wanderlust caused her footprint to balloon well above average.”

The last part stretches my ability to regard as serious:

Even the most virtuous of the eco-conscious can catch the travel fever, apparently. One of the contest judges suggested if Josie couldn’t curb her travel, “The next best thing is to purchase carbon offsets (you pay a company to do something green-virtuous) to assuage guilt and lighten your eco-load.”

So…that that means in this context, is that if your own road to hell worthy good intentions fail you, rather then actually do something about it yourself, just pay someone to be good for you.  And sock a bit more money in Al Gore’s deep pocket too.

That is not to say that the liberals have given it up as a cause:

Magazine: ‘We’ll See You in Carbon-Emissions Hell’

When Marie Claire magazine isn’t busy making women feel like they are too old or too fat, they are telling women who drive SUVs they’ll be heading to “carbon emissions hell.”

The September 2007 issue of Marie Claire features a sidebar in their “McBulletin” section entitled “Highway to Heaven.”

“Consult our quick guide to fuel-efficient cars, then cruise through the tollbooth at the pearly green gates,” the tag line explained, nestled between a scale of “good” and “evil” signs.

Someone call the Pope.

According to the piece, if you drive a Toyota Prius Hybrid or a Honda Civic Hybrid, you are pious and your reward is “Dinner in heaven with Leonardo DiCaprio.”

What, no foot massage?

Drive a Honda Civic or Accord, Toyota Corolla, Ford Escape Hybrid 4WD or Toyota Highlander Hybrid 4WD and you will get a “Bear hug from Al Gore.”

More like Manbearpig hug from Al Gore.

If you want Greenpeace to “slash your tires,” drive cars like the Lexus Rx, Ford F-150 4WD, Jeep Wrangler 4WD or Ford Mustang.

Nothing like a casual threat.

And to those who dare to drive a Hummer, Ford Explorer or Cadillac Escalade, Marie Claire said: “We’ll see you in carbon-emissions hell.”

I’ll be the one driving the Hummer.

Considering the absurdity of the alarmist campaign, and the almost desperate way they are contriving any reason to get you to join their Al “pied piper” Gore march, it is no surprise to read this:

“Green’ Bandwagon Stalling, Poll Finds

Despite unwavering attention from the media, government and business, global warming is only of moderate concern to most consumers, according to a new survey of consumers and their environmental attitudes.

“Consumers are not drinking the Kool-Aid when it comes to green,” said J. Walker Smith, president of the Yankelovich, Inc., marketing firm, which released the survey results on Monday.

“While they’re highly aware of environmental issues due to the glut of media attention,” said Smith, “the simple fact is that ‘going green’ in their everyday life is simply not a big concern or a high priority.”

This is “the first study of its kind to examine how much consumers truly care about green issues,” stated the research firm, based in Chapel Hill, N.C., in a news release, which further noted that only 34 percent of consumers feel much more concerned about environmental issues today than a year ago.

Also, only 22 percent of the 2,763 consumers surveyed think they can make a difference when it comes to the environment.

“Take former Vice President Al Gore’s book, ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ Even though it received widespread acclaim from media and scientists alike, 82 percent of consumers neither saw the film nor read the book,” Smith said.

I should be happy, but the fact is that the GW alarmists are facing the same burden that the GW realists are:

Most people would rather read about Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton than the environment.

And how does the media respond to all of this?

Newsweek: Forget about our past climate change mistakes - this time we’re right

Jeff Jacoby highlights Newsweek’s absurdity on the climate change front:

INTRODUCING Newsweek’s Aug. 13 cover story on global warming “denial,” editor Jon Meacham brings up an embarrassing blast from his magazine’s past: an April 1975 story about global cooling, and the coming ice age that scientists then were predicting. Meacham concedes that “those who doubt that greenhouse gases are causing significant climate change have long pointed to the 1975 Newsweek piece as an example of how wrong journalists and researchers can be.” But rather than acknowledge that the skeptics may have a point, Meacham dismisses it.

“On global cooling,” he writes, “there was never anything even remotely approaching the current scientific consensus that the world is growing warmer because of the emission of greenhouse gases.”

Really? Newsweek took rather a different line in 1975. Then, the magazine reported that scientists were “almost unanimous” in believing that the looming Big Chill would mean a decline in food production, with some warning that “the resulting famines could be catastrophic.” Moreover, it said, “the evidence in support of these predictions” — everything from shrinking growing seasons to increased North American snow cover — had “begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”

Yet Meacham, quoting none of this, simply brushes aside the 1975 report as “alarmist” and “discredited.” Today, he assures his readers, Newsweek’s climate-change anxieties rest “on the safest of scientific ground.”

As Bullwinkle Moose would say:  This time for sure!!!

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Right Celebrity, Wake Up America, 4 Time Father?, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Jeanette’s Celebrity Corner, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke’s News & Views, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Florida Masochist, Conservative Cat, Public Domain Clip Art, Conservative Thoughts, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Planck’s Constant, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS