The Dead Zone – Ethanol’s Contribution To The Environment

Not long ago, there was a report that alternative fuels such as ethanol could worsen “global warming” in that they produce high concetrations of nitrogen, which is worse than CO2… Now a new report indicates that the recent surge in corn production to create Ethanol, is in fact expanding an oxygen zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Dead Zone is the result of runoff nitgrogen from fertilizer that is forcing oxygen out of an area of the water and the sealife there is dying. This could create not only a detrimental effect on the “global warming” problem, but an ecological genocide will occur. How far will this Dead Zone expand? Will it grow exponentially? What will be the impact on other ecological systems when the native sealife dies off completely? What affect will this have on Algae in the area and what will the reduced C02/O2 exchange rate have on the globe? (Note the article only mentions how when Algae rots it sucks of O2, but they are not factoring in the loss of living Algae removing C02 from the air and generating 02)

So this is really a triple wammy of nitrogen… There is the runoff from production of cornm then there is the generation of nitrous oxide during combustion and finally the killing of Alqae which would have the ability to reduce Nitrogen polution… 

Those liberal environmentalist really know how to save the planet from “Global Warming”

How about using the natural growth of Algae to generate BioFuels… Oh wait that would cut into the profits of farmers that are already being subsidized by our government…

I bet this is something Al Gore and his cronies do not want you to read about anytime soon, at least not until his stock in these alternative fuels goes way up…

JEFFERSON, Iowa – Because of rising demand for ethanol, American farmers are growing more corn than at any time since World War II. And sea life in the Gulf of Mexico is paying the price.

The nation’s corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing “dead zone” — a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.

The dead zone was discovered in 1985 and has grown fairly steadily since then, forcing fishermen to venture farther and farther out to sea to find their catch. For decades, fertilizer has been considered the prime cause of the lifeless spot.

With demand for corn booming, some researchers fear the dead zone will expand rapidly, with devastating consequences.

“We might be coming close to a tipping point,” said Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental group. “The ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted.”

Environmentalists had hoped to cut nitrogen runoff by encouraging farmers to apply less fertilizer and establish buffers along waterways. But the demand for the corn-based fuel additive ethanol has driven up the price for the crop, which is selling for about $4 per bushel, up from a little more than $2 in 2002.

That enticed American farmers — mostly in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota — to plant more than 93 million acres of corn in 2007, the most since 1944. They substituted corn for other crops, or made use of land not previously in cultivation.

Farmer: ‘Try to be a good steward’
Corn is more “leaky” than crops such as soybean and alfalfa — that is, it absorbs less nitrogen per acre. The prime reasons are the drainage systems used in corn fields and the timing of when the fertilizer is applied.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that up to 210 million pounds of nitrogen fertilizer enter the Gulf of Mexico each year. Scientists had no immediate estimate for 2007, but said they expect the amount of fertilizer going into streams to increase with more acres of corn planted.

“Corn agriculture practices release a lot of nitrogen,” said Donald Scavia, a University of Michigan professor who has studied corn fertilizer’s effect on the dead zone. “More corn equals more nitrogen pollution.”

Farmers realize the connection between their crop and problems downstream, but with the price of corn soaring, it doesn’t make sense to grow anything else. And growing corn isn’t profitable without nitrogen-based fertilizer.

“I think you have to try to be a good steward of the land,” said Jerry Peckumn, who farms corn and soybeans on about 2,000 acres he owns or leases near the Iowa community of Jefferson. “But on the other hand, you can’t ignore the price of corn.”

Peckumn grows alfalfa and natural grass on the 220 or so acres he owns, but said he cannot afford to experiment on the land he rents.

The dead zone typically begins in the spring and persists into the summer. Its size and location vary each year because of currents, weather and other factors, but it is generally near the mouth of the Mississippi.

This year, it is the third-biggest on record. It was larger in 2002 and 2001, when it covered 8,500 and 8,006 square miles respectively.

Soil erosion, sewage and industrial pollution also contribute to the dead zone, but fertilizer is believed to be the chief factor.

Fertilizer causes explosive growth of algae, which then dies and sinks to the bottom, where it sucks up oxygen as it decays. This creates a deep layer of oxygen-depleted ocean where creatures either escape or die.

Marine life struggle to survive
Bottom-dwelling species such as crabs and oysters are most at risk, said Michelle Perez, an analyst with the Washington-based Environmental Working Group. “They struggle to survive,” Perez said. “They can’t swim away.”

Crabbers complained at a meeting in Louisiana earlier this year that they pulled up bucket upon bucket of dead crabs.

Rota warned that if the corn boom continues, the Gulf of Mexico could see an “ecological regime change.” The fear is that the zone will grow so big that most sea life won’t be able to escape it, leading to an even bigger die-off.

“People’s livelihood depends on the shrimp, fish and crabs in these waters,” he said. “Already, some of these shrimpers are traveling longer and longer distances to catch anything.”

Given the market pressure to grow corn, the Natural Resources Defense Council and others argue that the nation needs a comprehensive, federal approach to the problem.

Among the ideas floated: rules to force farmers to use fertilizers with more care, and the establishment of buffer zones to contain runoff.

Confession Of A Hillary Plant

Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff recalls the lead-up to her being a planted questions by the Clinton Camp. Remember, the camp and Clinton Deny that there was a plant…

Now many will miss this, there were at least eight other questions pre-staged… At least one was distributed, so one can assume they were all given out. I would also assume there were multiple Clinton Campers handing out questions… so let’s say just 10 Clinton campers working the floor, each with 9 questions… That is 90 questions on the floor waiting for Hillary’s canned answers…

I wonder how many other speechs this was done at…

Well at least CNN is making up for their own planting of questions… Well not really, they just seem to have turned against Hillary…

Draw your own conclusions, just do not forget about this when it comes time to elect the next President of the United States….

GRINNELL, Iowa (CNN) — The college student who was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign events said “voters have the right to know what happened” and she wasn’t the only one who was planted.

Student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff said a staffer told her what to ask at a campaign event for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said giving anyone specific questions to ask is “dishonest,” and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was simple: She said a senior Clinton staffer asked if she’d like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.

“I sort of thought about it, and I said ‘Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates’ energy plans?'” Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.

According to Gallo-Chasanoff, the staffer said, ” ‘I don’t think that’s a good idea, because I don’t know how familiar she is with their plans.’ ” Watch the student speak out about question »

He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.

“The top one was planned specifically for a college student,” she added. “It said ‘college student’ in brackets and then the question.”

Topping that sheet of paper was the following: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?” Watch the student ask the planted question »

And while she said she would have rather used her own question, Gallo-Chasanoff said she didn’t have a problem asking the campaign’s because she “likes to be agreeable,” adding that since she told the staffer she’d ask their pre-typed question she “didn’t want to go back on my word.”

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said, “This is not acceptable campaign process moving forward. We’ve taken steps to ensure that it never happens again.” Elleithee said Clinton had “no idea who she was calling on.”

Gallo-Chasanoff wasn’t so sure.

“I don’t know whether Hillary knew what my question was going to be, but it seemed like she knew to call on me because there were so many people, and … I was the only college student in that area,” she said. Watch the full interview »

In a separate statement in response to the campus article, the campaign said, “On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Sen. Clinton’s energy plan at a forum. … This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.”

Gallo-Chasanoff said she wasn’t the only person given a question.

“After the event,” she said, “I heard another man … talking about the question he asked, and he said that the campaign had asked him to ask that question.”

The man she referenced prefaced his question by saying that it probably didn’t have anything to do with energy, and then posed the following: “I wonder what you propose to do to create jobs for the middle-class person, such as here in Newton where we lost Maytag.”

A Maytag factory in Newton recently closed, forcing hundreds of people out of their jobs.

During the course of the late-night interview on Grinnell’s campus, Gallo-Chasanoff also said that the day before the school’s newspaper, Scarlet and Black, printed the story, she wanted the reporter to inform the campaign out of courtesy to let them know it would be published.

She said the “head of publicity for the campaign,” a man whose name she could not recall, had no factual disputes with the story. But, she added, a Clinton intern spoke to her to say the campaign requested she not talk about the story to any more media outlets and that if she did she should inform a staffer.

“I’m not under any real obligation to do that, and I haven’t talked to [the campaign] anymore,” Gallo-Chasanoff said, adding that she doesn’t plan to.

“If what I do is come and just be totally truthful, then that’s all anyone can ask of me, and that’s all I can ask of myself. So I’ll feel good with what I’ve done. I’ll feel like I’ve done the right thing.”

The Clinton campaign’s acknowledgment that it planted a question reinforces a widely held criticism of the senator — that she is not entirely honest, said Bill Schneider, CNN’s senior political analyst.

“It’s the same criticism often made of her husband,” Schneider said. “Most Americans never felt Bill Clinton was honest and trustworthy, even when he got elected in 1992 — with only 43 percent of the vote. His critics called him ‘Slick Willy.’ … Will her critics start referring to the New York senator as ‘Slick Hillary?’ ”

Asked if this experience makes her less likely to support Clinton’s presidential bid, Gallo-Chasanoff, an undecided voter, said, “I think she has a lot to offer, but I — this experience makes me look at her campaign a little bit differently.”

“The question and answer sessions — especially in Iowa — are really important. That’s where the voters get to … have like a real genuine conversation with this politician who could be representing them.”

While she acknowledged “it’s possible that all campaigns do these kind of tactics,” she said that doesn’t make it right.

“Personally I want to know that I have someone who’s honest representing me.”

A second person has a story similar to Gallo-Chasanoff’s. Geoffrey Mitchell of Hamilton, Illinois, on the Iowa border, said the Clinton campaign wanted him to ask a certain question at an Iowa event in April.

“He asked me if I would ask Sen. Clinton about ways she was going to confront the president on the war in Iraq, specifically war funding,” said Geoffrey Mitchell, a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. “I told him it was not a question I felt comfortable with.”

No questions were taken at the event. Elleithee said this incident was different from what happened with Gallo-Chasanoff in Newton. Elleithee said the staffer “bumped into someone he marginally knew” and during a conversation with Mitchell, “Iraq came up.” Elleithee denied the campaign tried to plant him as a friendly questioner in the audience.

Mitchell said he had never met the staffer before the event.

Former presidential adviser David Gergen said the front-runner’s campaign could take a hit from the incident.

“When a campaign plants a question, it’s a pretty minor infraction of the rules — like a parking ticket,” Gergen said. “The problem here is it feeds a damaging perception of Hillary Clinton that she can’t quite be trusted.”

Al Gore Blog Hacked, Turn Up The Heat

Al Gore’s blog on climate change was hacked and the hackers put links to drugs like viagra and other what nots… Something is up here… Oh wait that was his old buddy Bill…

Al Gore’s Blog Hacked

Posted Nov 27th 2007 9:59AM by Tim Stevens
Filed under: Computers

Al Gore‘s blog — in which the former presidential candidate-turned-celebrity environmentalist posts updates on global warming and the documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth‘ — has been hacked. But it’s likely you’d never know it by looking at the thing.

That’s because most of the hack work is hidden. The hackers in this case gained access to the site through a security hole, then inserted hidden links into the blog posts. To see them, check out our gallery of screens below. Hidden in the source code of the site, we found link after link pointing to drugs like Xanax, Viagra, Tramadol, and just about any other drug you can think of. Not terribly riveting, we know, but we just wanted to offer you some proof.

So what’s the point of hidden links that you can’t see? The answer lies in the results you get on search engines like Google. By hijacking a very popular site like Al Gore’s, the hackers can get their own pages more prominently placed in search results on Google. That’s because these links can be seen by Google’s crawler, which runs through the hidden code of Web pages to figure out where to direct you should you search for something like, say, Xanax. Since these links appear in a very prominent page, in this case Gore’s blog, Google’s engine thinks they are important, so people who later search for Xanax in Google might very well be redirected to the hacker’s Web site over another.

Interestingly, the links point to another site that also seems to have been hacked, making this literal web of intrigue a bit thicker. Don’t worry, it’s nothing to fear on your end as far as security or viruses are concerened. It’s also doubtful that the guilty party will ever be caught, but we’re hoping that Al calls his system administrator in short order and gets those links removed. This kind of pollution, at least, is easily cleaned. Unfortunately, right now, some poor chump is probably buying Viagra from the company that employed these hackers to give them Google search prominence.

Global Warming A Myth – Founder of The Weather Channel

The founder of the Weather Channel is calling the Gore cry about Global Warming a Myth… Wow, I wonder if Gore watches the Weather Channel?

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We’re going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members — assuming journalism hasn’t been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

[…]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

Let’s hope so, John; let’s hope so.

Clinton Planting More Than Corn In Iowa

The Clinton camp has been caught planting questions during a Town Hall forum in Iowa. The reprecussions are yet to be seen however the up coming caucus could show a caustic backlash as this area holds sacred the true meaning of open forums.

The biggest problem with this is that her canned speech is designed to force a perspective on Global Warming that may not necessarily be true. See says that young people in Iowa are very concerned with Global Warming and she knows this as so many are asking her about it.

The next area of concern is the political flip flop, isn’t this what the Bush Administration was accused by Democrats and they made a huge issue about it, the only difference, is that the Bush Administration allowed a specific reporter into a press conference, where as Hillary is using college students to influence other college students…

Lastly, it shows that Hillary is afraid of the open market questions, because she got caught off guard during the Democratic debate, so now she needs prepared answers so she does not stumble on the questions in the future. I wonder how many other questions have been plants, and how many more will come.

The Clinton camp has said this is then end, however had they not been caught, obviously this would have been the status quo for them.

Can you smell the fertilizer?

SIOUX CITY, Iowa —  Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee admitted that the campaign had planted the question and said it would not happen again.

“On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton’s energy plan at a forum,” Elliethee said.

“However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.”

In a state where the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clinton’s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans.

According to a report on the Grinnell University Web site, the Clinton campaign arranged for some of the questions for the candidate to be asked by college students:

“On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue…. /**/

“After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. ‘They were canned,’ she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. ‘One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],’ she said.

“Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

“But the source of the question was no coincidence — at this event ‘they wanted a question from a college student,’ Gallo-Chasanoff said.”

The tape of the event shows that the question and answer went as follows:

Question: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?

Clinton: “Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it’s usually young people that ask me about global warming.”

The campaign’s admission that it planted the question may be another blow to the New York senator’s image as a trustworthy politician.

Clinton’s critics have accused her of being a double-talker who refuses to answer tough questions specifically. Now her campaign has acknowledged planting at least one question.

Already her rivals have begun to criticize Friday’s revelation.

“In light of a weak debate performance, not to mention a persistent inability to answer the tough questions, it appears the Clinton campaign has adopted a new strategy of planting questions,” John Edwards’ Communications Director Chris Kofinis said.

“It’s what the Clinton campaign calls the politics of planting.”

Shrubs & Soot – Not Bush & Suits

Another horrible nail in the Al Gore Global Warming Scandel… After a recent highschool graduate testitfied for Congress on Global Warming effects in Alaska, we should all be panicing as the devestating effects and soon to be reality of Al Gore’s Truths. Well another Dr. has refuted Gore’s assertation that Humans are the cause of Global Warming. It seems that nature has it’s own hand in the effects of our environment. What a shocker.

Dr. Roger Pielke forwarded me his latest paper published in the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, for release. It has quite a different take on the issue of regional warming in Alaska. Given the emotional testimony given in congress this week by Cheryl Charlee Lockwood, who is a recent high school graduate and works in the Alaska Youth for Environmental Action program, before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, this study seemed relevant to current events.

From the abstract:

“Invasive shrubs and soot pollution both have the potential to alter the surface energy balance and timing of snow melt in the Arctic. Shrubs reduce the amount of snow lost to sublimation on the tundra during the winter leading to a deeper end-of-winter snowpack. The shrubs also enhance the absorption of energy by the snowpack during the melt season by converting incoming solar radiation to longwave radiation and sensible heat. Soot deposition lowers the albedo of the snow, allowing it to more effectively absorb incoming solar radiation and thus melt faster.”

“The results of the simulations suggest that a complete invasion of the tundra by shrubs leads to a 2.2°C warming of 3 m air temperatures and a 108 m increase in boundary layer depth during the melt period. The snow-free date also occurred 11 d earlier despite having a larger initial snowpack. The results also show that a decrease in the snow albedo of 0.1, owing to soot pollution, caused the snow-free date to occur 5 d earlier. The soot pollution caused a 1.0°C warming of 3 m air temperatures.”

The entire paper can be viewed here (PDF file) There is some precededence for the soot theory, as seen in this 2003 NASA News Release where they say “…black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.”

Solar Cycles, Seasonal CO2 Levels, Not Humans – Global Warming

I wonder what Al Gore has to say about this article which clearly shows the cyclical nature of “Global Warming”. As usually the liberal media has surpressed another scientific piece of evidence against Gores assertations that Global Warming is caused by Humans solely.

Moderators note: This is reposted from an essay that Jim sent to me. Jim was the State Climatologist for California for many years, and still does consilting work for the Californiua Dept. of Water Resources on rainfall studies. Jim has a command of simplicity in presentation, as you’ll read below. Jim’s presentation lends some insight into why CO2 increases lag temperature in historical and proxy climate records. Jim has also done another essay I’ve posted which relates The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Sunspots, and Length of Day variances to rainfall patterns in California which you can read here.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Variation
Jim Goodridge
California State Climatologist (retired)
jdgoodridge [at] sbcglobal dot net

11/3/2007

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is commonly modeled with the measurements from NOAA”S Mauna Loa observatory; the annual rate of increase in this data set is 1.4 parts per million.

This increase fluctuates 6.3 ppm on an annual cycle with the highest in May and the lowest values in October.

The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is listed in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics as a
declining function of temperature.

The rising values of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the time of the Mouna Loa measurements could clearly be a function of reduced solubility of CO2 in the oceans of the Planet.

The source of heat needed to drive the increasing carbon dioxide from the oceans of Earth into the atmosphere is the Sun. The solar irradiance has been measured from orbiting satellites since 1978. Irradiance was highly correlated with the historic sunspot numbers.

Schove’s index of sunspot numbers dated from the year 1500. Combining Schoves index with the Royal Belgium Observatory’s measurements an index 1749 a 500-year index of irradiance was developed.

If we are to believe that the irradiance and sunspot numbers correlate for the 3 sunspot cycles from 1975 to 2005 them it can be assumed that a correlation for the 1500 to 2005 follows. It is common to think of individual sunspot cycles to be independent events. This was not the case during the Maunder Minimum of sunspot activity from 1650 to 1710 when Earth was in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

The sunspot record needs to be examined in its entirety rather than as individual sunspot cycles. The method to do this is by calculating the accumulated departure from the average of all the sunspot numbers of the entire 500-year index. This reveals the cooling during the Maunder Minimum and the current “global warming”. The current warming of 15 watts per square meter began in 1935, based on the sunspot record.

The reason oxygen is 600 times as abundant as carbon dioxide is due to the robustness of microorganisms. The oxygen-carbon dioxide balance on the Planet has for billions of years been a function of the photosynthesis process.

Gore’s Inconvient Truth Filled With Nothing But Hot Air

Al Gore’s Inconvinient Truth Lie has been laid to task by a British Judge. Each of the “Facts” has been discredited, leaving only opinion. What is worse is Gore knew these were lies and used them anyways. He had the opportunity to remove said footage prior to its release, but chose to leave it in so as not to provide opponents and ammunition against him. Another words HE LIED!!!!

 Thank you Al, for pushing the panic button in order to line your own pockets with “Green” Money…

A British judge ruled on the eve of Al Gore co-winning the Nobel Peace Prize that students forced to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” must be warned of the film’s factual errors. But would there be any science at all left in Gore’s “truth” if these errors and their progeny were excised?

Minutes of non-science filler dominate the opening sequence — images of the Gore farm, Earth from space, Gore giving his slideshow and the 2000 election controversy. Gore then links Hurricane Katrina with global warming. But the judge ruled that was erroneous, so the Katrina scenes would wind up on the cutting-room floor.

Another 12 minutes of filler go by — images of Gore in his limo, more Earth photos, a Mark Twain quote, and Gore memories — until about the 16:30 minute mark, when, according to the judge, Al Gore erroneously links receding glaciers — specifically Mt. Kilimanjaro — with global warming.

The Mt. Kilimanjaro error commences an almost 10-minute stretch of problematic footage, the bulk of which contains Gore’s presentation of the crucial issue in the global warming controversy — whether increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide drive global temperatures higher. As the judge ruled that the Antarctic ice core data presented in the film “do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts,” this inconvenient untruth also needs to go. [Note to readers: A video debate between Al Gore and climatologists on this point produced by me can be viewed by clicking here.] /**/

After still more filler footage about Winston Churchill, the 2000 election, and rising insurance claims from natural disasters, Gore spends about 35 seconds on how the drying of Lake Chad is due to global warming. The judge ruled that this claim wasn’t supported by the scientific evidence.

More filler leads to a 30-second clip about how global warming is causing polar bears to drown because they have to swim greater distances to find sea ice on which to rest. The judge ruled however, that the polar bears in question had actually drowned because of a particularly violent storm.

On the heels of that error, Gore launches into a 3-minute “explanation” of how global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and send Europe into an ice age. The judge ruled that this was an impossibility.

Two minutes of ominous footage — casting Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in a creepy light and expressing Gore’s frustration with getting his alarmist message out — precede a more-than-9-minute stretch that would need to be cut.

In this lengthy footage, Gore again tries to link global warming with discrete events including coral reef bleaching, the melting of Greenland, catastrophic sea level rise, Antarctic melting and more. But like Hurricane Katrina, these events also shouldn’t be linked with global warming.

Based on the judge’s ruling, the footage that ought to be excised adds up to about 25 minutes or so out of the 98-minute film. What’s left is largely Gore personal drama and cinematic fluff that has nothing to do with the science of climate change.

It should also be pointed out that Gore makes other notable factual misstatements in the film that don’t help his or his film’s credibility.

He says in the film that polio has been “cured,” implying that we can cure “global warming.” While a preventative polio vaccine does exist, there is no “cure” for polio.

Gore attempts to smear his critics by likening them to the tobacco industry. In spotlighting a magazine advertisement proclaiming that “more doctors smoke Camel than any other brand,” he states that the ad was published after the Surgeon General’s 1964 report on smoking and lung cancer. But the ad is actually from 1947 — 17 years before the report.

Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10.

Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn’t want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.

“An Inconvenient Truth” grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.

Considering that a key 25 percent of “An Inconvenient Truth” is not true — and perhaps intentionally so — it seems only fair that Gore offer a refund to moviegoers, DVD/book purchasers and speaking sponsors. Where are the class action lawyers when you need them?

Obama Clearing the Air

Obama has jumped on the Al Gore bandwagon, his plan financially destructive. Does he realize the cost on the average American to accomplish this goal. There is the basic financial burden to purchase for your home the new equipment to become energy efficient. The second burden falls on the tax payers to finance the governments conversion. The third burden falls upon the consumer when companies raise their prices to compensate for the higher tax they will need to pay. And for what? Is there any proof that this will change global warming? No.

He, and most of the liberal left,  is asking for companies to commit suicide by financing their demise. What do they think the new companies will do when they have the market share? They will increase prices. Even now, to purchase a hybrid car is not cost effective. To by the standard gas version is far cheaper, and no the tax benefit does not make up the difference.

Hey I have a novel idea, why not try to develope technology to clean the air of pollutants, this approach would solve the global warming problem, allow a longer transition to cleaner fuels, relieve the financial burden on the average person.

Nano technology is remarkable powerful, get those little guys to fix the problem instead of the bandaid fix the liberals want to execute on each of us.

On energy, Obama proposed using $150 billion from the sale of allowances to stimulate climate-friendly energy and economic development. Included would be developing the next generation of biofuels and fuel delivery infrastructure, accelerating commercial production of plug-in hybrid vehicles, promoting larger-scale renewable energy projects and low-emission coal plants, and making the electricity grid digital.

He also called for making government, businesses and homes 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030, with all federal government buildings carbon neutral by 2025. Incandescent light bulbs would be phased out by 2014, a measure Obama estimates would save consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills.

Bio Fuels will Accelerate Global Warming

A recent international study has found that BioFuels such as Ethanol emite up to 70% more greenhouse gases, particularly nitrous oxide, than fossil fuel. Nitrous Oxide is 300 times more damaging than carbon monoxide. This is the second study that has come to this conclusion, which will surely be brushed aside by the likes of Al Gore and others that want to blame humans for Gloabal Warming. The alternative fuels sources are becoming slimmer. More Green Credits please…

Another hiddedn jem in this article, that the liberal left will deny, is that the study also found that the human effect, man-made causes, is only responsible for 2% of Global Warming. Holy Jesus, what about the other 98%? Please Mr. Gore, answer that. Additionally if the US were to move to biofuels,, man-made emissions would rise to 6%, that is a 300% increase in greenhouse gases. Time to wake up America, the liberals are using smoke a mirrors, ultimately to make money for themselves.

The Al Gore campers have been trying to convince the public were are all so bad and we need to spend massive amounts of money to change to “green” engery and we will have to give up our daily convinience unless we have green credits. What a load of crap. Speaking of crap, guess what contains a lot of nitrogen based compounds that release into the air. Guess what will be used to rapidly grow corn for Ethanol. If you guessed the crap that keeps coming from the Gore campers, your were right.

A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.

Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.

Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties.

Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.

“One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions,” said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers.

Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production.

Professor Smith told Chemistry World: “The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto.”

It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels “can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”.

The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, where it has been placed for open review. The research team was formed of scientists from Britain, the US and Germany, and included Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone.

Dr Franz Conen, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, described the study as an “astounding insight”.

“It is to be hoped that those taking decisions on subsidies and regulations will in future take N2O emissions into account and promote some forms of ’biofuel’ production while quickly abandoning others,” he told the journal’s discussion board.

Dr Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, used the findings to calculate that with the US Senate aiming to increase maize ethanol production sevenfold by 2022, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will rise by 6 per cent.