About Me

Name: BLOGASSAULT
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Graduating Green

     University of Colorado graduates are making a pledge to be green as they make their way into the working world. Graduation Pledge Alliance  is an organization that asks graduating students to make a pledge to look carefully at job opportunities and pick one that is environmentally friendly.
    G.P.A. started in 1987 as a group of concerned students who were concerned about the social and environmental issues of the time.

   

What difference could be made if hundreds of thousands, or millions, of students entering the workforce investigated the ethics of their potential employers? Would some choose a different employer? Or simply “work from within” to improve their company’s impacts? Could a powerful pledge movement influence policymakers to make changes for the betterment of society and the environment? Would students make more of a difference if the university encouraged them a little more? We had a lot of questions, actually. Young people usually do.

Keep in mind that in the late 1980’s, there were many issues being raised on university campuses. We were in the middle of a nuclear arms race, with a huge hole in the ozone. There was talk about the U.S. having traded arms for hostages in Iran, and massive species extinctions in the forecast. On and on continued the list of concerns: global warming, destruction of the rain forests, nuclear testing, toxic waste, U.S. support of wars in Latin America, apartheid in South Africa, and in our own Arcata backyard, a Texas oil tycoon was quickly liquidating the largest private holdings of ancient old growth redwood forest to pay for his company takeover. There were a lot of issues, like today - a mind-boggling amount for any young person.


    We all survived of course. And as it says, we have a whole new set of problems. But they are they same socially; evil people in the world doing evil things. Environmentally, it is still the same old tired movement, only today this movement has money and power in the form of the U.N. And like robbing oil tycoons and apartheid, the U.N. has been corrupted with that power and money, and I believe they do as much harm as good in the world- morally, socially, and environmentally.

    
What their doing is a good thing. But WORLD PEACE is their goal,and like all people who search for that are simply naive. They keep hoping that through education or a pledge, that the world can change; people will change. One thing that is for certain, the human race repeats itself. And evil people will always be here,. ALWAYS.

    
    
   

 
    
    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Europe's Fascination With Al Gore's Movie

     Britian, will be showing Al Gore's Movie An Inconvenient Truth in every school house to create more awareness to climate issue's. They decided to follow Scotland's lead in doing the same thing.  Some people in the U.S. want the film banned in schools around the country,but they also think that theEarth is 14,000 years old. Most people know that that is ridiculous, and that's probably why they printed the story. It makes the opposition to global warming look dumb. 
    Then two weeks later parents came to the school board meeting and set them straight.

Paul Levy, a Federal Way resident, told the board there was nothing controversial about the film.

"There is no scientific controversy," Levy said about the idea that humans cause global warming. It was "a controversy created by nonprofessionals creating a smoke screen."

    It's all just a conspiracy of course. If you can't believe the scientists than your obviously trying to divert the attention away from global warming. The problem with that is they just simple trust the science, with out investigating it for themselves. Look behind the science and you will see the power and money involved. As I have said before, go to the IPCC website and look at the SCIENCE, not the disaster reports.  There, you will find a lot about the devastation of global warming, but little on the science. But what you do find is not convincing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Glenn Beck's World

     Glenn Beck is a national radio talk show host, and is promoting on his web site his Inconvenient Tour. he will be traveling the country to discuss issues surrounding the out of control climate debate.
My sister-in-law sent me the link to his site. You have to look at his Disaster Map; it's pretty funny.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Seal On Vacation

     A seal washed up on a Fort lauderdale beach the last monday surprising a number of people, being this mammal normally lives on the ice in Greenland. Of course, the journalists first mention of what the possible explanation could be was "global warming".  
    The idea of putting that phrase in an article is common place these days, whether or not there is any truth to the matter. Maybe the journalist is simply convinced that something as unusually as this and being it has something to do with Greenland and warm weather that "global warming" applies. But I think it has more to do with the idea of spreading the climate change gospel. It may not even be done directly. But it has become a five alarm fire in the media and the U.N., eventually saturating the mind. As the old saying goes, if you hear it long enough you will come to believe it. 
    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are You An "Ecosexual"?

     Twenty and thirty something trendy-city-living-enviromentalists have been saddled with the new term; "ecosexuals". Actually it isn't necessarily a new thing. I found the term used back in December of 06' in this article from Australia. The term "metrosexual" has morphed into "ecosexual" because of the onslaught of global warming and climate change that threatens to destroy the world...and it's all our fault!

Welcome to the latest turn of the wheel in the obsessive trend-creating machine that brought us “metrosexuals.” Ecosexuals are an evolving breed of city dweller for whom keeping green is every bit as important in their romantic life as in their choice of household cleanser, dinner food, or wall paint. Sure, everyone has a checklist of qualities they want in a mate: smart, funny, good-looking, six-figure potential, listens to Beck, and so on. But now we’re adding characteristics like “sexy conservationist” or “romantic recycler” to the list. 

    Listen up men, you better get with the program! Women are looking for other qualities than just a sense of humor, and your income potential. You better have the green recycle cans in your garage and organic food in the fridge. Eating pork is "out". Having organic sqaush and soy milk is "in". And just in case your worried about the dress code, an organic cotton suit is a good choice. 

But it's not just about men. Women need to shape up too.


Still, as Pearson discovered, environmental principles and romance can be a combustible mix. For every couple that bonds over the organic tomatoes, there’s another that never makes it past the compost pile. Food seems to be a particularly large stumbling block.


“I shopped at Rainbow; she shopped at Safeway,” is how Monte Gores, a 33-year-old Berkeley stock-trader-turned-acupuncturist summed up his differences with a woman he once dated. “One night she told me she’d just eaten half a chocolate cake for dinner,” he says. Not exactly a “mindful” way to eat. “If you’re thinking about a long-term relationship, that’s a red flag.” They broke up within two months.

    Eating a chocolate cake for dinner would probably be a "red flag" to any male that's looking for the right mate.
Still, alot of the same principles that apply for the male also apply for the female. Being green by using organic foods, wearing earth friendly clothing, and recycling, all have to be second nature. It's just not good enough to be a "metrosexual" anymore. You have to be Earth freindly at the same time. 

    Not that I would want to be known as a trendy enviro tree hugging city dweller, I would bet that having a concealed carry license would bar my entry anyway.


    

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Climate Questions At The Republican Debate

     Did you notice at the Republican Presidential debate last week, that there were no questions on climate change? This blogger noticed as well. The only problem is that he thinks the candidates are dodging the seriousness of global warming.

    I didn't watch the Republican debate last night, so I can't be sure that climate change got short shift, but seeing as I couldn't find more than a hint of the subject in this morning's coverage on the net -- and heard only a passing reference in a NPR report listing the "other" subjects addressed -- I feel pretty safe concluding that the candidates assume the planet's future, and that of civilization, isn't of particularly interest to GOP voters. No surprise there. The question is, is this a bad thing, or good?

    First off, the questions were offered by John Harris, editor in chief of politico.com and Jim Vandehei, executive editor of politico.com.  The candidates didn't get to pick the questions. But hey, he didn't watch so how would he know?!

Only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
This explains why candidates for the GOP nomination wouldn't feel compelled to include climate change in their nine-minute share of last night's 90-minute debate. It's not that they're necessarily stupid, it's just that they're more interesting in pandering than leading. 

    Stupid? I guess they were pandering all the REAL issues in America. This wasn't a global warming debate.This was telling the American public who they are and what they believe. They were not asked the warming question, but maybe that's because it's doesn't register within the top 20 issues that Americans care about. 

 
Can we exploit this polarization? Can the Democrats draw on it, and tear themselves away from beating up on the Bush administration's handling of Iraq to focus the public attention, every now and then, on how we're going to steer this mighty ship of state away from the precipice of a runaway greenhouse effect


    I second that motion! Has anybody noticed how little has been done in the congress since the Democrats took control? That's because they are too busy investigating ever action every taken by the Bush Administration, and every single person involved in those actions. 
    As far as "steering this mighty ship of state", it should be easy in 20 years or so with all the melted ice caps raising the sea levels 9,000 feet or something. We will all be living on ships, I suppose. Maybe we will adapt. Maybe we will grow webbed feet and gills. MAYBE IT"S HYPED UP SCIENCE TO PROMOTE AN AGENDA FOR THOSE LOOKING TO MAKE A DOLLAR.

Maybe were all doomed as the IPCC says. Nahhh... I find that "highly unlikely". (In IPCC terms that would be a 90% chance)
    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Yawning

     Pretty good New York Times article. I find it amusing that this writer is concerned with the cheapening of the cause, while the evidence he sights in his article is really quite the norm. This environmental push is in a lot of ways nothing more than a fad. Like clothes and music, it all rotates, coming back to haunt us of times past.
    At least he thinks critically about the movement. It's easy for some to get so worked up about an issue, they eventually forget the basic principles, the fundamentals.

Not that it isn’t nice to do be able to do some penance by paying to support environmentally helpful projects. But are these projects all so well thought-out?

Even when the issues are green, things are rarely black or white.

As I have been saying all along.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Colorado's Enviroment

     In Colorado we are starting an experiment. We are going to be first to lead the nation in an energy mandate that, if successful, will lay down a blueprint for other states. Along with state government, the enviro's are working with the energy suppliers in this state to change the way we make power. And here is how we are going to do it. 
    Of course the public always pays for everything whether you think it or not. But this is a backhanded way of going about it. We will fund the entire project before it's even started, then we will pay for the increased cost of producing that clean energy through higher utility bills. Actually, besides paying first and getting later, there is nothing new here; we all pay for it one way or another. Except now, with the help of state government, we are playing Robin Hood.

Perhaps the most radical energy measure of the session was Senate Bill 22, which will turn the PUC into a sort of welfare agency by allowing it to authorize Xcel to charge the wealthy and middle class more so that it can charge the poor less. Historically the PUC has been forbidden to discriminate among types of ratepayers.

And then we started a new government position.  In Colorado we now have a state climate advisor. Eventually Heidi VanGenderen hopes to make her position through the Democratic party a White House Cabinet position.

The ball is rolling, and we the citizens of the nation are going to pay, one way or the other.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Losing The Bee's

     I have been hearing something about this, so I did a little searching. Here is one story with video's.
Found this story in an unusual web site. I actually visit here sometimes. 
    Of course Bill Maher knows what's best for us, and this wouldn't be happening if we would stop the melting of ice caps, and stop talking on our cell phones. Like he doesn't have one?!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CFL's Disected

     I am not against admitting a good thing when I see it. CFL's, according to this article are not going to save the world but they will help. The authors seemed to have done their homework.  Hopefully they last longer than they did less than five years ago. We used them in a display in our front show room where I work. If we got 500 hours out of one bulb, that was it. So I will wait and see. But based on the article, they will save energy and, properly disposed, save mercury from polluting our landfills. 
    Recycling is not easy though. My municipalities doesn't even offer any type of recycling yet. Most people I know don't do it because it's not convenient. You have to separate the recyclable items. You have several different bins or garbage cans to put it in, and those take up room. Some city's won't take certain items and you have to take those to a recycling center yourself. So the local governments need to make it simple or people simply won't do it...including me.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global WarmingAccording To Frank Herbert

     My wife loves the science fiction works of Frank Herbert who is most notably known for his series of DUNE books. After my wife read everything he wrote three times over and was looking for something new to read, I came across a book edited by Tim O'Reilly written in 1987. It is basically several essay's written by Frank over the years talking about everything from his writing to politics to religion. One thing my wife read to me is very fitting to today's discussion of war and the environment. I will have to type it because it is not available on the net that I can find.

    "On the morning of april 20, 1970, commentator Hugh Downs opened NBC's  Today Show with the first of five days programs focused on Earth Week. His guests for the series were to be some of the nation's leading figures in the field of environment, people such as Margaret Mead, Paul Ehrlich, Rene Dubose, Ian Mcharg, Canon Don D. Shaw, Mayor John Lindsay, Astronaut Frank Borman, Senators Edmund man Morris Udall.
    That opening show shared the spotlight with many news events-the safe return of the Apollo 13 astronauts, disastrous tornados in the South and Middle West, the air war in Laos, President Nixon's announcement that he would report on Vietnam, a new assault on Cuba by armed Exiles, new fighting in Israel, heavy snows in Northeast Minnesota and Idaho, and freezing rain in Northwest Wisconsin...and gusty winds in southern California.
    All of this, and much more, constituted the environment of April 20, 1970."
Frank Herbert The Maker Of Dune, Insights Of A Master Of Science Fiction

    If you were to read further along you would find that he believed the Earth was doomed.

"The penalty is upon us. We are sentenced to breathe the air we have fouled, drink the water we have polluted, to have our consciousness crushed by views imprisoned in gray walls. Continued offenses will only bring down total capitol punishment-upon the guilty and the innocent."

    
What I found interesting in the first statement was the world situation in 1970. Warfare, communism, and fighting in Israel mixed with weather. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? History tends to repeat itself. 
    When the U.S. is involved in war and other significant countries are fighting their enemies, out comes the environmentalists. Why is that? Do people who hate war and death (which is really about 90% of the human species) look to turn the attention to something greater? Maybe they want everybody to look at the planet that we all inhabit and realize that we will all die if we don't do something now. Or, maybe they want simply to discuss something other than war. Who knows?

    Doom and gloom is their game. They want to show us how, through our own stupidity, that we are all slowly killing each other. Is it really any different? 
    There is only one real difference. We must fight what is right in front of us. Evil people, governments, and tyranny. If those people rule, the environment will be the last of their concerns. And will not be free to voice our opinions or state the facts about what we as humans are doing to the planet, whether it's based on real tested science or hyped up scare tactics. On the other hand, if we can survive the evil around us and keep our priorities in order, we will live to fight the enviromental battle another day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Update On Mars Global Warming

     The temperature is changing on Mars but it's not the same. Duhhh...

The causes of global warming on Mars -- still not entirely understood, Fenton said -- are not only far different from those on Earth, but the temperatures involved are totally different.

But there is still climate change happening, right?


According to Fenton and her colleagues, the global average ground temperature on the Martian surface as measured by Viking's instruments was about 97 degrees below zero Fahrenheit more than 20 years ago, and by the time Mars Global Surveyor took the planet's temperature 22 years later, it had heated to a more comfortable 95 degrees below zero.

Surface air temperatures rose dramatically too during the period, Fenton's team calculated: from a frigid 108 degrees below zero during the Viking orbits to a sultry 106 degrees below 22 years later when Mars Global Surveyor took the readings.

Cold as those numbers are, on frozen Mars the changes mean that global warming is continuing, and whether it persists depends on where and how the Martian winds whirl the Martian sands around and change the planet's albedo from bright to dark or back again, Fenton said.

If they say so.  Earth needs an albedo, I think?!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hollywood The Enviroment And Kate Bosworth

     Just read this and try not to laugh!  We all need to, like, you know, like, be more environmental or something!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Laurie David Answers Some Questions

 Been out of town the last few days, and haven't had any time to post.

So, I get back and one of the first things I see is this article in the Rocky Mountain News.  They waste the first to questions on Al Gore; Blah, Blah, Blah... 
    She seems to think she could change the mind of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the most outspoken in the ranks of Republicans against global warming. She would have him watch An Inconvenient Truth and buy him popcorn and treat him to dinner. Wow, that's pretty nice of her. But I don't really think it would work that way after the fireworks at the White House Correspondence Dinner.
    And what does she do to help the environment? She drives a Hybrid vehicle and change her bulbs to CFL's. Good for her.
    Here are my five questions for her. How often does she fly in a jet? How big is her and Larry's House? How much electricity does it use? Would she be willing to be transparent about all of it?  And how many squares of T.P. does she use? 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »