Updated Below

The latest threat the GW alarmists are fretting about is Gas…cow flatulence to be exact.  And the unlikely savior of the world from bovine emissions?  Kangaroos!

Eco-friendly kangaroo farts could help global warming: scientists

Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, researchers say.

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroo flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.

While the usual image of greenhouse gas pollution is a billowing smokestack pushing out carbon dioxide, livestock passing wind contribute a surprisingly high percentage of total emissions in some countries.

“Fourteen percent of emissions from all sources in Australia is from enteric methane from cattle and sheep,” said Athol Klieve, a senior research scientist with the Queensland state government.

…

But it will take researchers at least three years to isolate the bacteria, before they can even start to develop a way of transferring it to cattle and sheep.

Ironically, they actually got something right, as methane is indeed a greenhouse gas, and one that is a lot more harmful the CO2.

I doubt that cow farts are really that big of a deal however.  Regardless, the ‘Roo is poised to make the ultimate sacrifice:

Another group of scientists, meanwhile, has suggested Australians should farm fewer cattle and sheep and just eat more kangaroos.

The idea is controversial, but about 20 percent of health conscious Australians are believed to eat the national symbol already.

“It’s low in fat, it’s got high protein levels it’s very clean in the sense that basically it’s the ultimate free range animal,” said Peter Ampt of the University of New South Wales’s institute of environmental studies.

“It doesn’t get drenched, it doesn’t get vaccinated, it utilizes food right across the landscape, it moves around to where the food is good, so yes, it’s a good food.”

It might take a while for kangaroos to become popular barbecue fare, but with concern over global warming growing in the world’s driest inhabited continent, Australians could soon be ready to try almost anything to cut emissions.

Save the planet:  Eat Kanga and Roo?  What would Pooh Bear say?

As one Washington tries to pass a Global Warming Bill:

US Senate Panel Approves Bill To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

A U.S. Senate committee has passed landmark legislation aimed at combating global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions. The vote was timed to coincide with the U.N. conference on climate change taking place in Bali, Indonesia. VOA’s Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.

The bill would set caps on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from electric utility, transportation and manufacturing industries beginning in 2012 with the goal of cutting emissions 60 percent by 2050. It would create an incentive system that would give credits to industries that cut pollution. Industries that failed to reduce emissions would be forced to buy credits from others.

…The other Washington makes it’s stand:

 Governor’s team recommends 47 ways to cut greenhouse gases

Tolls for busy roadways, higher energy-efficiency standards for new buildings and increased recycling and composting are all top picks for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, as selected by the state’s Climate Advisory Team.

Now someone just has to get them done.

The team met in Seattle for the last time Wednesday before lawmakers convene in Olympia next month. The group, which was appointed by Gov. Chris Gregoire and has been meeting since March, tried to come up with specific recommendations for the Legislature but was unable to whittle down its choices.

It’s a cinch that a tax increase is in there somewhere….for our own good, of course.

Speaking of the conference in  Bali, which you will recall I told you has had so many environmentally unfriendly private jets bringing the delegates that they can’t park them all, more interesting hypocrisy is emerging:

Hot Air Emitted by Climate Summit Equals 20,000 Cars

Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

The delegates each will produce an average 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2, to reach the resort island 950 kilometers (600 miles) from Jakarta, according to estimates e- mailed to Bloomberg by the UN agency holding the conference.

Some of the 187 nations participating in the two-week forum promised to offset their so-called carbon footprint by planting trees or buying emission credits. The symbolic actions won’t help stop global warming, some scientists say.

“It’s very hard for the public to understand that you come together with so many people to a very distant place and cause a lot of emissions, and at the same time talk about emission reductions,” Artur Runge-Metzger, head of climate strategy for the European Commission, said yesterday in an interview in Bali, adding that he had offset his own emissions.

Do as they say, not as they do.  It never changes.

And never forget, we got to this mess by means of Al Gore’s consensus hoax:

How Gore and Media Fabricated a Global Warming Consensus

How often in the past couple of years have you heard a climate alarmist refer to a so-called scientific consensus concerning man’s role in global warming?

Almost any time you see a report on the subject, correct?

Have you ever considered how this belief that a consensus exists came to be, and if it actually means anything?

Answering such questions is the Wall Street Journal’s Holman W. Jenkins Jr, whose op-ed Wednesday should be must reading for citizens, media representatives, and especially politicians that actually believe an overwhelming majority of scientists around the world are drinking Al Gore’s Kool-Aid (h/t NBer dscott, emphasis added throughout):

[A] Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the “greenhouse” effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.

How this honor has befallen the former Veep [Al Gore] could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on “availability bias,” roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.

Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: “Availability cascade” has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; “informational cascade” for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd’s beliefs; and “reputational cascade” for the rational incentive to do so.

Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he’s playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: “The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”

Here’s exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged “consensus” arrived at their positions by counting heads?

 Fascinating, wouldn’t you agree? But there was more:

Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself.

[...]

Now let’s suppose a most improbable, rhapsodic lobbying success for Mr. Gore, [Vinod Khosla of the venture capital firm Gore now works for], and folks on their side of the table–say, a government mandate to replace half the gasoline consumed in the U.S. with a carbon-neutral alternative. This would represent a monumental, $400 billion-a-year business opportunity for the green energy lobby. The impact on global carbon emissions? Four percent–less than China’s predicted emissions growth over the next three or four years.

Don’t doubt that this is precisely the chasm that keeps Mr. Gore from running for president. He could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending “climate crisis.” Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs. How much more practical, then, to cash in on the crowd-pleasing role of angry prophet, without having to take responsibility for policies that the public will eventually discover to be fraudulent.

All with media’s help, of course.

Read it all, it makes for fascinating reading.

UPDATE:

Adding to the accusations of fraud comes this story, via Sister Toldjah:

Claim: IPCC lied about sea level data (UPDATED)

The UK Telegraph reports on an accusation from Dr. Nils-Axel Morner regarding sea level claims made by the Nobel-winning IPCC (h/t: McQ):

The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. In an interview by George Murphy, Morner cites various examples of falsification of evidence claiming sea level rises.

Another interesting read about the settled science.

I still maintain that the worst emissions are the ones coming from their mouths in the form of lies, fearmongering and alarmism.

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS