Monthly Archives: April 2008

Why do these people have any credibility?

Posted on by

Ok… another global warming post. Ok… it turns out that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorced an 80 by 50 (80% recution in CO2 emissions by 2050) CO2 plan. Let’s look at what this would actually mean for Americans… (via WSJ.com)

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood.

If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita

Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.

If this goes to prove ANYTHING… it is that Democrats are so out-of-touch with facts and reality that neither facts nor reality matter to them in the slightest. They are completely willing to believe that we can have lower carbon footprints in 2050 than we did in 1700… even though there was next to NO industry in the 1700′s. The Democrats who want or believe this is possible suffer from a severe mental impairment. They are delusional. To even suggest this as a matter of public policy is laughable…

Are these the minds we want RUNNING the country? (oh! let’s allow these minds to manage the economy too…)

English 501 (this is advanced stuff, folks…)

Posted on by

this is a great example of why I love reading James Taranto’s “Best of the Web Today”

Euphemizing the Enemy
A New York Times story on Gen. David Petraeus’s proposed promotion to head of Central Command contains this linguistic howler:

[Defense Secretary Robert] Gates said he and President Bush settled on General Petraeus for the post because his counterinsurgency experience in Iraq made him best suited to oversee American operations across a region where the United States is engaged in “asymmetric” warfare, a euphemism for battling militants and nonuniformed combatants.
The Times editors apparently can’t tell the difference between jargon (technical language) and euphemism (using an inoffensive term to refer to something disagreeable). Here’s an example:

• Plain English: He died.
• Jargon: His metabolic functions ceased.
• Euphemism: He went to a better place.

“Asymmetric warfare” is jargon. How funny that the Times misidentifies it as euphemism in the very same sentence in which it employs its own euphemism for the enemy–i.e., “militants and nonuniformed combatants” instead of terrorists.

Burn baby, burn…

Posted on by

I.C. - Olympic Games 2012 Carbon Footprint (2007)If you are an environmentalist… don’t read this interesting tidbit from Slate.com

“To track the flame’s slow assault on the atmosphere, we created a map that charts its total carbon emissions as it flies. Through Tuesday’s stop in Jakarta, the relay has traveled an estimated 37,518 miles, burned 202,597 gallons of jet fuel, and released 4,838,021 pounds of CO2. To put this in perspective, the average American leaves an annual carbon footprint of 42,000 to 44,000 pounds of CO2 emissions, according to the United Nations. That means the Olympic torch will spew as much greenhouse gas during its international travels as 153 Americans do a year. Put another way, the four-month torch relay puts twice as much carbon in the atmosphere as you will over the course of your entire life.

Suckers…

Posted on by

Democrats Then:

  • efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” - Senator Barak Obama
  • the surge “is a failure,” - Senator Nancy Pelosi
  • the troop buildup “is a failure” – Senator Biden
  • the surge was an “absolute failure” – Ron Paul (ya, I know he isn’t a democrat but he was still wrong)

Democrats NOW:

  • More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that’s a fact. – Dick Durbin
  • The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq … appear to have produced some credible and positive results. – Carl Levin
  • We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it’s working. – Hillay Clinton

I don’t need to add any commentary to this… I am vindicated.

Oh, and this in the New York TImes: