HAPPY EARTH DAY From Barack Obama as He Uses 9,000 Gallons Of Jet Fuel for Air Force One’s Trip To Everglades for Speech No One Shows Up At
What is wrong with this picture, actually both pictures.
HYPOCRISY ALERT … Yesterday, Barack Obama traveled to the Florida Everglades to provide a speech on global warming and the supposed impact on the environment on Earth Day. However, there was a slight problem that added a bit of irony and a interesting bit of hypocrisy … Obama’s trip on Air Force One to the Florida Everglades to promote environmentalism used 9000 gallons of jet fuel. Nice carbon footprint Barack. As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, Barack Obama’s Earth Day trip to Southern Florida will emit roughly five times as much carbon dioxide as the average American does in a full year. But of course, conservation and doing without is only for the common folk, not Barack Obama. How typical of the LEFT to tell others what they should be doing and then doing just the opposite themselves.
WH spox Josh Earnest spins his way out of a question on Obama’s global warming hypocrisy … Answer, because he is Obama and your not
Transcript via Rabble Writer:
MR. KNOLLER: On the Everglades trip, does the President risk undermining his message when he flies to the Everglades on a 747 hundreds of miles to make a statement about climate change? (Laughter.)
PEANUT GALLERY: He could drive. (Laughter.)
MR. EARNEST: It’s a provocative question.
UNIDENTIFIED: Take a van.
MR. EARNEST: But, no, he doesn’t. The President believes that there are important changes that we can make to reduce carbon pollution in this country, and we can do it in a way that will be good for our economy. That is precisely the case that the President will be making at the Everglades. And he’s looking forward to the trip.
MR. KNOLLER: Does he try to minimize the carbon footprint that he leaves whenever he goes anywhere?
MR. EARNEST: Well, obviously, the Department of Defense and the Presidential Airlift Group at the United States Air Force is responsible for the President’s transportation. So you can talk to them about any steps that they may have taken. I can say as a general matter that the Department of Defense has acknowledged that climate change does pose a national security threat to the United States. And there are a lot of practices that the Department of Defense has taken to try to reduce their carbon footprint. I don’t know how that intersects with the use of Air Force One, but you could check with the Air Force on that.
With swampy wetlands and alligators as his backdrop, President Barack Obama will use a visit to Florida’s Everglades to warn of the damage that climate change is already inflicting on the nation’s environmental treasures — and to hammer political opponents he says are doing far too little about it.
Obama’s trip to the Everglades on Wednesday, timed to coincide with Earth Day, marks an attempt to connect the dots between theoretical arguments about carbon emissions and real-life implications. With his climate change agenda under attack in Washington and courthouses across the U.S., Obama has sought this week to force Americans to envision a world in which cherished natural wonders fall victim to pollution.
According to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, Obama’s Earth Day trip to the Everglades will cover 1,836 miles roundtrip and consume 9,180 gallons of fuel on Air Force One.
If one actually believes this dribble of global emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming, how does one explain their actions of causing more harm than good?
According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, burning that much jet fuel will produce more than 88,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide. That is about five times as much as the 17,600 kg that the average American emits annually, according to United Nations data.
Jet fuel “produces, in addition to carbon dioxide, NOx, sulphates, and particulate matter, all of which amplify the impact of aviation on global warming,” according to the Flying Clean Alliance, a group that advocates restrictions on aviation-related greenhouse gas emissions.
Now let’s figure out the amount of jet fuel used, the amount of carbon emissions spewed into the atmosphere and the number of people that actually attended Obama’s Earth Day speech. WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE? Seriously, where are any of the people? How does anyone justify this trip to speak in front of 25 people? There may have been more alligators in attendance.
18 Apocalyptic Predictions Made During the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970 That Were Just Flat Out Wrong
WOW, COULD THE 1970′S GLOBAL ALARMISTS BEEN MORE WRONG?
Everyone who was old enough during the 1970′s remembers the constant predictions that there would be an ice age. There was gloom and doom of apocalyptic type catastrophes and that were were headed into an Ice Age. It is those same disingenuous people who now predict that man made global warming will be the end of times. Hey folks, can you people settle on your scientific lies? From the American Enterprise Institute comes the following 18 predictions made in the 1970′s around the time of the first Earth Day. Take a good look and see just how wrong these alarmists have been already. Now we are supposed to give their present day predictions any credence?
To watch these VIDEOS is just amazing. Interestingly enough, the media called Earth Day a failure.
EARTH DAY … A QUESTION OF SURVIVAL (Walter Cronkite)
How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started.
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” [Um, wouldn't this mean that the world would have ended between 1985 and 2000? If my calendar serves me correctly, isn't it 2015? As Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 would say, "missed it by that much".]
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. [Hmm, see prediction 1.]
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” [The 1970's editorial folks might want to visit Beijing, China.]
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” [Wow, some one really got this one wrong.]
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By… some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” [Paul Ehrlich was on a stuck on stupid role in the 1970's with his predictions.]
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” [Dude, the Great Die Off, really? The only thing that died between 1980 and 1989 was Paul Ehrlich's reputation and credibility.]
Earth Day 1970 Part 6: Boston … Boston Police break up protest at Logan Airport (CBS News with Walter Cronkite)
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness. [Good grief, even though his predictions were toal BS, this guy is still spouting his bovine scatology.]
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” [Wrong again, what was this fascination with famine? Or was it wishful thinking?]
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” [OMG, ROTFLMAO]
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” [Watt also predicted the world would run out of oil by the year 2000 and that humans would emit so much nitrogen light would actually be filtered out of the atmosphere. Where is my head shaking emoticon?]
Earth Day 1970 Part 11: White House Reaction (CBS News with Walter Cronkite) – What’s comical is that Pres. Nixon is the one who created the EPA
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate. [These folks spread this BS and made a living out of doing so. UNREAL.]
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles. [Oh no, its Paul Ehrlich again with another ridiculous claim of gloom and doom. This dude must have been a laugh-riot to be around]
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. [Damn, I hope this is not the case. Note to Ehrlich, the life expectancy in the United States as of 2012 is 78.74 years.]
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” [Oh no, I better go fill up the Chevy. Oh wait, its 2015. My prediction, by the year 2000 Ecologist Kenneth Watt had zero street cred.]
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. [I guess its good for him that he died in 1986 and wasn't around to see his bone-head wrong prediction.]
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” [His prediction should have been that 75-80 percent of the 1970 Earth Day predictions were extinct.]
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.” [Paul, Paul, Paul ... sometimes silence is golden, especially with your predictions].
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” [What would Al Gore say ... Al said that the Earth had a fever, not the chills. From an Ice Age to Global warming and we experienced neither.]
It’s settled science … bio-fuels made from corn worse than gas in emitting greenhouse gases …
What say you Barack Obama, Al Gore and the rest? According to a federal government paid for study, bio-fuels made from leftovers of harvested corn plants release 7% more greenhouse gases as compared to conventional, evil gasoline. Let me repeat that, this was a paid for federal government study. So not only are we creating a fuel that is more harmful, as they say, to the environment, they are taking the food source away from human and animal usage.
Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration’s conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.
A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.
While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won’t meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.
build subsidies it, it will fail …
Hate it when that happens, eh environmental wackos? Here comes the priceless part, the LEFT and Obama admin officials is criticizing the study as flawed. HAHAHA!!! What’s the matter, don’t like it when the results that you paid for don’t fit your liberal agenda? These are the people that demonize those that do not believe that man is responsible for global warming, oh sorry what do they call it these days, climate change.
The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.
The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticized the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway.
OK, can we please stop pretending biofuel made from corn is helping the planet and the environment? With huge subsidies for ethanol in gasoline, with all States now selling gasoline having some ethanol blend, and a general misconception that these biofuels are green, corn ethanol has taken on a $30 billion/yr life of its own.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released two of its Working Group reports at the end of last month (WGI and WGIII), and their short discussion of biofuels has ignited a fierce debate as to whether they’re of any environmental benefit at all.
Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace Says “There is No Scientific Evidence that Humans are the “Dominant Cause” of Climate Change
So much for “settled science” on global warming/climate change, eh Barack …
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace said on Tuesday in front of a Senate panel that there is no scientific evidence to back claims that humans are the “dominant cause” of climate change. Hold the phone, a co-founder of Green Peace said what? Moore was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, but he left the organization in 1986, accusing the organization of political activism and being more interested in politics, rather than concern for the environment.
Um, how do we lie to Americans now?
A co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate panel on Tuesday that there is no scientific evidence to back claims that humans are the “dominant cause” of climate change.
Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like Greenpeace use faulty computer models and scare tactics in further promoting a political agenda, Fox News reported.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Mr. Moore said. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.
“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” he said.
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change Is Caused By Humans. … it is as simple as this:
“Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record. …When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,” Moore argued
When Green Energy Kills … Rare White-Throated Needletail Bird Last Seen in Britain 22 Years Ago Reappears Only to be Killed by Wind Turbine
Where is the Green Peace, PITA outrage … Animals needlessly killed in the name of energy?
War against oil and coal, eh? Looks like green energy wind turbines may be more deadly. As reported at the Daily Mail, as bird enthusiasts flocked to the Hebrides to catch a glimpse of the brown, black and blue rare white-throated Needletail bird last seen in Great Britain 22 years ago. Then suddenly, the rare bird became even more rare as it flew into the “green” energy wind turbines and was killed. Below is the VIDEO of the onlookers gushing over the sight of the rare bird before its most unfortunate demise. Listening to them before, I can only imagine what they sounded like when the bird was killed by the evil, big “green” wind turbine.
There had been only eight recorded sightings of the white-throated needletail in the UK since 1846. So when one popped up again on British shores this week, twitchers were understandably excited.
A group of 40 enthusiasts dashed to the Hebrides to catch a glimpse of the brown, black and blue bird, which breeds in Asia and winters in Australasia.
But instead of being treated to a wildlife spectacle they were left with a horror show when it flew into a wind turbine and was killed.
John Marchant, 62, who had made the trip all the way from Norfolk, said: ‘We were absolutely over the moon to see the bird. We watched it for nearly two hours.
‘But while we were watching it suddenly got a bit close to the turbine and then the blades hit it.