Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, October 23, 2009

A new generation of biofuels, meant to be a low-carbon alternative, will on average emit more carbon dioxide than burning gasoline over the next few decades, a new study finds. "In the near-term I think, irrespective of how you go about the cellulosic biofuels program, you're going to have greenhouse gas emissions exacerbating the climate change problem," said lead author Jerry Melillo of the U.S. Marine Biological Laboratory.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

boojiboy

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Scientific American is the way Bobby Inman wanked without the African natives National Geographic provided his generation's hetero population...excuse me....'community'..... Rcade probably wants me to stop speculating at this point....

This will be the Thread where the regulars come to pile on the evil, secular scientists and their contribution to our current level of sophistication (in technologies and medicine) as if they aren't beneficiaries of their hard work.

It's sorta like how the "republicans" in congress berate government healthcare as ineffective and useless, but then refuse to give theirs up!

Redneckville: what the fuck are you talking about? My point has been in countless posts how this apparent 'advancement' in science has resulted in the decimation of Southeast Asian and South Pacific rainforests. Science can fuck up ya know.

If a tree,
falls in the forest
does anybody hear?

YEAH!

This will be the thread that everyone reads and then says "CocoSamRedvile is a fucking retard". Just like every other thread you post in, stupid.

Another ethanol-like screwup?

Biofuels will increase global warming--well no kidding!!

And there is no where near anything to take over what the production of oil and gas provides for this economy.

Brazil has reportedly the worse air next to China using sugar as their fuel.

Boxer is still working on the cap and tax bill--we are so screwed.

This will be the Thread where the regulars come to pile on the evil, secular scientists and their contribution to our current level of sophistication (in technologies and medicine) as if they aren't beneficiaries of their hard work.

It's sorta like how the "republicans" in congress berate government healthcare as ineffective and useless, but then refuse to give theirs up!

#2 | Posted by Redneckville
* * * *

This is a Hall-of-Fame caliber stupid post. Godalmighty.

Used to be that Moneywar owned the hundred stupidest posts in the history of the 'blogosphere. But Redneck is starting to crowd him out. Every day he shows up, he pushes down the stack.

Damn Scientists must need grant money. They are throwing out that Global Warming Scare tactic once again. Sighhhhhhhh. Why can't they be honest and say we just want more monies and be done with it.

Larry

LAR-
Serious question for you. You are pretty much 100% of the lib viewpoint on most all topics. Yet for some reason you don't go along with the left on global warming. Why?

I hope somebody tells Willie Nelson.

Gee, big shocker. Food makes a lousy fuel for cars and trucks. Who would have ever thought.

Lets use our vast LNG reserves for vehicles and go back to using food to feed people and animals.

Serious answer OohRah. I live in Kansas where the "Climate"(Read Weather) changes daily. Sometimes it's hotter sometimes it's colder but it has ALWAYS changed since I was borned out of Mama. Hell in 1980 we had 47 STRAIGHT DAYS of over 100 plus Temps. It all evens out in the wash. I believe Global Warming is a sham scam flim flam just for scientists and people in Government to fleece the populace of research monies and to keep the populace afraid of SOMETHING anything just to control the populace better.

Larry

Because going with the pack may not be Larry's way of doing things?

Because he is not afraid to challenge the status quo?

Because he is not a week spineless blithering sheep?

My point for years has been that global warming has taken our eye off the ball on far more material environmental threats and basically politicized environmentalism as a whole. People are so focused on the temperature, they have lost sight of environmentally destructive forces such as deforestation.

Now there is a good deal for you grenies.

I believe Global Warming is a sham scam flim flam just for scientists and people in Government to fleece the populace of research monies

The amount of your tax dollars spent researching global warming is a tiny drop in an ocean-sized bucket. There must be another reason.

and to keep the populace afraid of SOMETHING anything just to control the populace better.

We have several already:
Registered sex offenders
Drug dealers
Terrorists

I tend to take the scientists at their word. If they are lying, they get found out eventually. Nobody has ever successfully perpetrated a scientific fraud for long. It's just not possible when you have a feeding frenzy of other scientists who would love nothing more than to discredit your findings. Technically this is known as "peer review."

" fleece the populace of research monies "

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground

Arrhenius, Svante, 1896.
wiki.nsdl.org

Received no funding.

The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Temperature

Callendar, G.S., 1938
wiki.nsdl.org

Received no funding.

Next idiot.

#15 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-10-23 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag: FIRST IDIOT

AL GORE
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$

IPCC
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$

CAP AND TRADE
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$

Damn just as I was going to convert the car over! Now I guess I have to waste money on a real diesel...hmmmm, based upon this news now I am saving the environment with a big diesel. Who da thunk it!

1896, 1938

Al gore must be one old dude.

Happy extinction, stupid, you deserve it.

Well, this news sucks, but I don't get why people assume any alternative to gasoline will suck. What did we do before gasoline? What did people think when they first saw motor-cars? We've got serious problems with our environment that we need to change, especially with the growing world population. Boojiboy is right about too much focus on global warming, there are plenty of environmental problems to be fixed (deforestation, the mountains of plastic in the oceans, overfishing, soil problems, water management problems).

I'd recommend anyone to read Collapse by Jared Diamond, or at least the final section of the book (it's a 525 page whopper). He talks a lot about all the different things we need to change if we are to sustain ourselves.

Bio fuels is not and never has been about environmental concerns. It's all about reducing our dependency on foreign oil. The lower pollution content of bio fuels is just a bonus.

When the right wing nuts start flapping their trap about bio fuels being a "communist plot" they only demonstrate once again that they are uninformed and brain washed as usual.

"...and wether or not it is clear to you...no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should..."

- The Desiderada

Who cares? We've got our exit strategy.
The Rapture

-The Right

Who cares, we've got our exit strategy.
More abortion and assisted suicides.

-The Left

Old News. Very old news.

Who cares, we've got our exit strategy.
More abortion and assisted suicides.

-The Left

There's a biofuel-powered abortion machine that uses the latest Kevorkian technology, assembled in Denmark?

Can I invest now or do I have to wait for the IPO?

Once again, the premise is flawed. The writer of this article is assuming that global warming is man-made.

When these bio-fuels are used, yes, the co2 and what not will enter the atmosphere, but that doesn't effect "global warming". We cannot change/alter what we can't control. So, whether we use these fuels or gas or whatever, tomorrow will be warm here, cold there, rainy there... you get the picture. And in a few months, the weather will change again.

I have said it before and a few said it earlier, it's all about $$. Govt's (all of them, not just the US) MUST stop funding this type of research if we ever want truthful results. And, Larry, you exercise so much common sence on this subject, how can you be so wrong on almost everything else?

When these bio-fuels are used, yes, the co2 and what not will enter the atmosphere, but that doesn't effect "global warming". We cannot change/alter what we can't control.

We have no control over whether or not we burn fuel, fossil or otherwise?

It's the Good King Wenceslas approach to resource management.

#27 | Posted by snoofy

No, we cannot change "global warming" by our actions. It is not man made.

"It is not man made."

Keep telling yourself that. It's too late anyway.

Human Fingerprints
www.ucsusa.org

Nature 449, 710-712 (11 October 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06207; Received 29 March 2007; Accepted 30 August 2007

Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence
www.nature.com

Data pins polar warming blame on humans
www.cnn.com

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 16 October 2008 | Corrected online: 21 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.111

Foreboding forecast

Olive Heffernan

Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1525815262 (2008)
www.nature.com

Science 20 May 1988:
Vol. 240. no. 4855, pp. 996 - 1002
DOI: 10.1126/science.240.4855.996

Articles

Abrupt Climate Change and Extinction Events in Earth History
www.sciencemag.org

Bio fuels is not and never has been about environmental concerns. It's all about reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

#20 | Posted by RingMaster

I guess using our own oil and gas never has been an option. WTF over.

and he usual cadre of fuckheads voice their collective horse manure opinion..no surprise here..

I guess using our own oil and gas never has been an option. WTF over.

#30 | POSTED BY SNIPER

not enough to pump out of the soil

leg, I guess you are looking in the mirror.

No, we cannot change "global warming" by our actions. It is not man made.

Okay, let's accept your premise and not worry about global warming.

Should we be worried about the acidification of the oceans stemming from absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide? Is that also not a man-made phenomena?

Let's cut right to the chase: CO2 levels have been steadily rising for a few dozen decades. Did man do that, or is there another cause?

www.realclimate.org
en.wikipedia.org

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable