My Broken Identity
BullPie
12 May 2008, 13:35 UTCBiofuels Need One More Spike
Biofuels are almost a caltrop, mostly because the media will never say anything bad about them, and therefore most people believe they are a way to save the planet. What can you say bad about them right? They are a renewable energy source. They help farmers.
I have been firmly against them for quite some time. Not because I hate the planet, quite the contrary, but because more gasoline is used in their production than fuel is produced. This is like the kids story where one kid has a dollar, and trades it for TWO quarters, then he trades those for THREE dimes, then FOUR nickels, FIVE pennies.
We are burning up oil and food, to produce a comparatively small amount of "green" fuel.
I read a really interesting and thought provoking article yesterday, that points out reasons that food should be linked to energy.
It should not be forgotten that in the entire sweep of human history prior to 90 years ago, almost all non-railway transport fuel was grown on farms and the trade-off between the use of grain for food or transport was a central element of all human commerce. A part of every farm was set aside as the "horse paddock" and part of every oat or corn crop was set aside for both family consumption and horse transport and traction purposes. The family's ride into town was fueled by a stomach full of grass but it was the bag of oats, that was contentedly munched on while the shopping was done, that fueled the ride back home. Every farmer also knew that if they wanted the ploughing done on schedule then they would need a few more bags of supplemental grain to maintain the effort. And all the products the family had bought had been transported by animals whose sole source of fuel was grain that had been bought in the same market where the same grains (of slightly different quality) were sold as food for humans.
The whole article is great and well worth the read. I had never thought of it that way. Maybe linking food to energy is a good thing after all. However, I really can't see how this negative energy balance is the way to do it.
I see how linking the two is a more economically sustainable way of doing things. The article states it well...
For the rural poor this doubling and trebling of food prices is the good economic news that well informed development economists have been calling for for decades. The major cause of their poverty was the low cost of energy and the resulting artificially low break even price of industrially farmed commodities. These low priced industrial food stocks undermined the prices of third world farming produce to the point where the results of a days labour were insufficient to feed the farmers family for that day. This was further exacerbated by the dumping of subsidised food as "aid" to the expanding urbanised populations that needed to be placated to maintain any semblance of order.
If the farmers in third world countries are benefiting from the US not giving away as much food, then the US should stop giving away as much food! That is a huge issue too! I think Bono's aid to Africa is a terrible thing. It is done in the worst way. It is destroying the livelihood of these people and making them completely dependent on this aid. However, I really don't see what that has to do with biofuels.
12 May 2008, 12:20 UTChehe
I was doing a search on google about climate change and found this:
Climate change hinders progress on MDGs
MediaGlobal - New York,NY,USA
By Shipra Prakash 11 May 2008 [MEDIAGLOBAL]: If developing countries don’t adapt to climate change they could face serious setbacks to achieving poverty ...
No joke! The only thing accomplished here is poverty for developed nations. The article is crazy! I don't know if the author just hasn't read anything about global warming, and trusts "An Inconvenient Truth" 100%, or what. One thing is for sure, the snippet that came up in the search was the absolutely correct. It would be hard for us to acheive poverty without this scam.
4 May 2008, 17:15 UTCComments That Crack Me Up!
In staying up on the Global Warming debate I read a bunch of crap. I wonder how writers come up with this stuff and then talk about "peer reviewed" and act like they know the distinction between a doctorate in meteorology, and a PhD in Climate Science.
I was reading an article today, Earthlog: Climate change boomerang, that was pretty bad.
What scientists mean by global warming, though, is the sun's radiation being trapped near the Earth's surface by greenhouse gases. This has been going on for millions of years and is now happening at a faster rate thanks to rising emissions of fossil fuels.
What? Does any of that make any sense to anyone? Luckily, There were comments that talked about it, and made me laugh.
"What scientists mean by global warming, though, is the sun's radiation being trapped near the Earth's surface by greenhouse gases. This has been going on for millions of years and is now happening at a faster rate thanks to rising emissions of fossil fuels."
No Charles, that isn't what scientists mean by global warming; indeed the paragraph I've quoted is scientifically illiterate. That's what you get when you move into science pontification from an education in, er, english and philosophy.
One good way to think of the C02 issue is that changing the makeup of the atmosphere changes the Earth's emissivity, and thus in simple terms a different temperature is required to re-radiate incident radiation from the Sun as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Your statement makes it sound as if the Earth has been storing energy for "millions of years" (the Earth is billions of years old, FYI) and that somehow this has "got worse" of late. Piffle.
Are there any Environment Editors or Environment Journalists out there who have so much as an O Level in one of the sciences?
Posted by Ian B on May 2, 2008 5:16 PM
Report this comment
Good Job Ian B!
Then came the real knee slapper. I have been wanting to comment on this subject for a while. How funny it is that Global Warming is taking a break for the next ten years. None of the Climate Models ever caught it. I guess they just could not ignore the drop in temperatures since 1998 any longer. This comment says it all in a great way for me.
Thank God, according to Charles Glover, that GW (not climate change?) is back. I thought for one moment we were going to get some good news. I understand it will be back in 2015. Any chance of knowing in which week - so that we can organise our holidays. Thanks.
PS I haven't heard anything about GW being postponed to 2015 from the BBC.
Posted by Paul Totherleg on May 2, 2008 4:33 PM
Yes, Paul Totherleg says it all. I want to know the week also!!
4 May 2008, 16:32 UTCMilking Schlubs
This is the most ridiculous ad campaign ever! I can't believe that Newt is in on this crap.
But this makes me happy!!
4 May 2008, 13:36 UTCNot Gone Just Busy
I have been quite busy for the last couple of weeks and therefore have not been able to post anything.
In the meantime here is a great post that I strongly recommend reading.
I have also changed up the look of this blog again, and ask for comments. I would really like to know if anyone is reading. So, don't be shy. Leave a comment. Come out, come out wherever you are.
Let me know who you are, how you found me, how long you have been reading. You know the usual...
I am worried that this will be horribly imbarrassing, due to having no readers. However, I am really interested to know if I even have one reader.
27 April 2008, 14:41 UTCGlobal Warming Hysteria
A complete list of all the things that have been blamed on global warming. This list is awesome.
Most of them are really funny to read. look at these two Antarctic Ice Grows Antarctic Ice Shrinks
Just to let you know... Global Warming would make the Antarctic Ice Grow!
25 April 2008, 9:09 UTCSo Funny!
A follow up to my last post.
Tim Blair has a really funny way of telling the story and the comments made me laugh harder than I have in a long time!
23 April 2008, 21:52 UTCMore of Al Gore's $330,000,000 Ad Campaign
This is tragic. Everyone should know that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam! That's where we can agree! You would think that two Christian pastors could agree on more than "one issue".
Wonder if the background was a CGI?
We all know that Al Gore's Movie was a complete lie but, but realizing that he stole Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI), just makes me mad! From other people I have talked to about the ABC news program pointing it out, they are mad too! What horrible lies!
22 April 2008, 20:35 UTCThat's too bad
The indocrination of Global Warming has gotten so bad that they are now offering degrees in it at Clark University. It is actually called
Global Environmental Studies, but you get the idea.
When you look at the webpage it really shows how slanted this degree is:
If you seek to learn about:
...then the Global Environmental Studies major is for you.
This makes me really sad. It really devalues the hard work of everyone with a bachelors degree. Especially those with a Bachelors of Science.
Look at some of the courses that you can expect to take with this major
GES125 Suburban Sprawl under the Microscope
bold GES136 Gender and Environment
GES180 The Earth Transformed by Human Action
GEOG222 Why Global Warming Matters II
GES237 Feminism, Nature and Culture
EN103 The Sustainable University
EN124 Global Warming: How to Respond?
EN207 Climate Change, Energy and Development
EN277 Sustainable Consumption and Production
GEOG277 Gender, Environment and Development
ID269 Raced Nature, Gendered Developments: The Political Economy of Environmental Conservation
MGMT252 Green Business Management
GES090 Native Americans and Natural Resources
You can read about a typical week in the life of a student, by Ashley Trull.
For example:
On Thursday night I did something pretty awesome for my Global Environmental Justice class; we did an activity called the Political Ecology of the Dinner Plate. Basically we all came together with different ingredients and cooked a dinner together as a class. We saved all the labels and packaging and are now figuring out where our food came from, how it got there, and what social/environmental effects it carried with it, looking at things like what country it was grown in, what kind of labor was used, what kind of chemicals were used in its production, and how far it had to travel and what that means for carbon emissions. It was really fun and interesting!
When I was In College I had to take a Multi-Cultural Studies class, and it was the most horrible anti-white, anti-American, and anti-male thing I have ever seen. It was also very weird, as there were no facts. We were to take the professor's ideas as fact and be tested on them.
We were told that the Mexican Day of the Dead was the correct way to celebrate Halloween, and Americans are wrong. Which is sad because I would like to learn about the way it is celebrated in other cultures. I would love to learn about the origins of the holiday. Just don't don't tell me that my culture is wrong.
We were told stupid statistics that compared apples to oranges. Like "The population of the US is 13.7% Hispanic, and the percentage of Hispanic people from Los Angeles that have died in Iraq is 22.8%" If you do not have a doctorate in idiocy like this professor, then you know that this statistic is Apples to Oranges. You have to compare the percentage of Hispanics in Los Angeles that joined the military to the percentage of Hispanics from Los Angeles that died in Iraq in order to make a racial case. Los Angeles has a 46.53% Hispanic population. You know that if those numbers added up the way that the professor presented them, then the MSM would go crazy! The entire class was shocked with how racist the United States was.
Look at the course description for GES090 Native Americans and Natural Resources
In June of 1975, a gunfight between the F.B.I. and the American Indian Movement (A.I.M.) occurred in South Dakota. The shoot-out was due, in part, to the transfer of Indian land to the U.S. government for uranium and coal development. Some of the most extensive reserves of uranium, coal, oil and gas, gold, copper, timber, water, and other resources lie within reservation boundaries and their development has been fiercely contested by many Native Americans. This course deals principally with the efforts of Native Americans to manage resources, to resist land and resource seizures by corporations and federal and state governments, and to repair damage done to ecological systems. We will examine the history of Native Americans; the appropriation of their lands; corporate natural resource development impacts; contested concepts of “development” and “progress”; and new approaches to resource management including salmon restoration, buffalo management, and wolf reintroduction.
Whoever is teaching this course had to make a far stretch to connect all that.
Do you think that a class that calculates the carbon footprint of a meal (without any math prerequisites) will objectively discuss the issue?
I feel really sorry for this girl who is so well indoctrinated that she thinks this degree will actually provide a job. She thinks that she is being given a real education.
I am sorry kids but there is absolutely no way to know much about Climate Science without MATHEMATICS!! If you are learning about Global Warming at a college level, and you have not taken some high level statistics courses. You are being hoodwinked.
Imagine getting a degree in Muslim physics
17 April 2008, 18:38 UTCHow bad is it?
I have tried a whole bunch of different looks for this blog. It seems I change it every couple of weeks. I really like this one. I was in the process of changing the rest of my site to imitate it.
I know it dies with IE6.0 but it still can't cause harm to your eyes.
Today I see on Digg a comment that about makes me cry.
couldn't read the article because the web site made my eyes bleed. shame you didn't learn web design too.
I know it looks retro, and doesn't look like most internet sites, but I thought it was cool and fun. I really did not want to make anyones eyes bleed either. Is it really that bad?
You can tell me.
[UPDATE:] Is that better?
16 April 2008, 17:26 UTCLinux Really is the Road to Success
15 April 2008, 7:51 UTCSome Professors Have it Right
14 April 2008, 12:33 UTCNaples Will "Wake Up" to Climate Change
10 April 2008, 19:56 UTCHere is Where Jo Abbess is Today
8 April 2008, 22:27 UTCOf Course They Are Brainwashing Our Children
6 April 2008, 16:00 UTCDeceptive Headline
6 April 2008, 13:45 UTCLord Lawson is Cool!
3 April 2008, 21:28 UTCGreeley Tribune is the Best!
2 April 2008, 17:39 UTCKing Penguins are the Opposite of the Cockroach
1 April 2008, 14:02 UTCContradictions
29 March 2008, 15:30 UTCTime to Sharpen the Pulaski's
25 March 2008, 22:22 UTCABC News makes faux pas
25 March 2008, 9:01 UTCIPCC is a Caltrop
22 March 2008, 21:34 UTCThe Debate is Over, The US Caused Global Warming!
22 March 2008, 16:57 UTCMust Reads for Those Wanting to Learn About Global Warming
20 March 2008, 9:05 UTCGore still spinning it up
19 March 2008, 8:53 UTCTypical NPR
15 March 2008, 16:36 UTCPoor Atlanta
15 March 2008, 3:38 UTCThese Great Commercials Are Showing Up Everywhere
13 March 2008, 9:48 UTCWheres the Warming?
Blogroll
Hysteria List
View blog authority
